LINCOLN, Neb. (DTN) -- An attempt to stop Bayer's proposed $7.3 billion national Roundup settlement was ended by a federal court, which ruled Wednesday that the case will continue to play out in state court.

A group of 10 non-Hodgkin lymphoma victims attempted to put the brakes on the settlement by having the case moved to federal court where those victims asked for a trial.

A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued an order denying that motion, ruling the settlement will continue to play out in the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis in Missouri. That court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in March 2026.

On May 22, 2026, the group of cancer victims filed a notice of removal with the federal court, arguing the settlement should have been filed in federal court, that they are the only true opponents of the settlement and that the case should be realigned to make them the actual defendants.

"The objectors attempt to 'realign' themselves as defendants in this case classify themselves as 'the true defendants' because according to them, they are the only ones who oppose the relief that the named parties want, that being a settlement of class action Roundup claims," U.S. District Judge Edward Autrey wrote in the order.

"Removal of an action by people who are not defendants in the action is not authorized. Objectors are not defendants in the action and have no basis upon which to remove it. The court therefore lacks jurisdiction and the case must be remanded."

The objectors' core grievance is that if the settlement is approved it would bind them to "unconscionably low" compensation for their injuries, the petitioners alleged in taking the action to redirect the case.

The company said in a statement Wednesday that the court's decision was needed to continue the settlement process.

"This decision returns jurisdiction over the class settlement to Missouri Circuit Court where the vast majority of pending claims in the Roundup litigation have been filed," the company said.

"This decision brings much needed clarity to all parties and will enable the class approval process to continue to move forward. It also renders the related JPML proceedings moot, as this court has determined the case belongs in state, rather than federal court. Monsanto remains confident that the class settlement, which is supported by plaintiffs' counsel representing tens of thousands of potential class members, is fair to all parties and the objections have no merit."

Christopher A. Seeger, proposed class counsel in the Roundup settlement, said in a statement to DTN that the state court is where the case belongs.

"These objectors, like MDL co-lead counsel before them, have thrown every procedural obstacle they could find at a $7.25 billion settlement, one of the largest class recoveries in U.S. history," Seeger said.

"We move forward and will not stop until every Roundup victim who has waited far too long finally gets the justice they deserve."

To fund the class, Bayer said it would be making declining capped annual payments for up to 21 years, following court approval.

The settlement covers plaintiffs who allege exposure to Roundup prior to Feb. 17, 2026, and have a medical diagnosis of NHL now or receive a medical diagnosis of NHL before the end of a 16-year period following final approval of the agreement, according to Bayer.

Unlike a previous settlement, Bayer described in a news release that the newly proposed settlement was a "long-term compensation program."

In their court filing, the objectors said they first received copies of the class action petition and proposed settlement on or after May 12, 2026, but were never formally served. They filed objections in the state court and filed the notice of removal just last week.

The entire thrust of their objections is that the settlement would wipe out their individual claims against Bayer.

The objectors' motion also describes what they say was a "secret" meeting between Bayer lawyers, class counsel and a judge from the Missouri state court, resulting in a proposed settlement 15 days later.

A final fairness hearing is scheduled for July 9, 2026, in the state court.

In April 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell in a case that could put an end to failure-to-warn claims filed in state courts.

For background on this case: https://www.dtnpf.com/…

Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@dtn.com

Follow him on social platform X @DTNeeley

(c) Copyright 2026 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.