2026-04-24T13:26:52.888Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：约翰·弗里茨
发布时间：2026年4月24日 美国东部时间上午9:26
2026年4月7日拍摄的美国最高法院。
拉马特·古尔/美联社
在最高法院听取本开庭期最后几轮辩论之际，各大企业纷纷前来陈情，敦促保守派多数大法官保护各行业免受数百万美元的陪审团裁决，限制仿制药营销，并削弱政府处以罚款的权力。
威瑞森、孟山都和思科系统等公司已在本月向最高法院提交了重大上诉案件。
尽管这些案件涉及的法律问题截然不同，但综合起来可能会对经济产生广泛影响，影响从起搏器到宠物食品等各类产品，以及消费者和政府监管机构追究公司责任的能力。
其中最重要的案件之一是农业巨头孟山都的上诉，该公司正面临数千名受害者的诉讼，这些人声称其除草剂草甘膦导致了他们罹患癌症。该公司正在对一项支持密苏里州男子的裁决提起上诉，这名邻居口中的“喷洒工”在长期使用该产品后患上了癌症。
相关报道 2月20日通过相机取景器拍摄的美国最高法院。亚伦·施瓦茨/盖蒂图片社/资料图 九名大法官日益在法院之外打造个人品牌 阅读时长7分钟
“如果最高法院支持孟山都，其影响将远远超出农药行业，它将剥夺各州保护本国公民的权力，并让因危险产品受伤的民众无法进入法院维权，”曾多次在最高法院出庭辩护的古普塔·韦瑟勒律师事务所律师马修·韦瑟勒告诉CNN。“这并非国会的初衷，将从根本上动摇民事司法体系维护公共安全的作用。”
孟山都已于2018年被德国公司拜耳收购。
未来几天，思科系统公司将辩称，最高法院应限制一项旨在追究公司海外侵犯人权行为责任的法律的适用范围。上周，威瑞森和美国电话电报公司（AT&T）对联邦通信委员会对其处以的数百万美元罚款提出异议，该机构称两家公司未妥善处理客户数据。
而在本开庭期预计将是最高法院最后审理的案件中，一家仿制药制造商与 Vascepa 的专利持有人展开了较量。Vascepa是一种用于降低心脏病发作风险的药物。纠纷的焦点在于，总部位于伦敦、美国总部位于新泽西州的赫克托制药公司是否在新闻稿和网站宣传中描述其仿制药时，鼓励了专利侵权行为。
已在制药和孟山都案件中提交法庭之友意见书的公共公民诉讼小组的律师阿迪娜·罗森鲍姆表示，这起案件“有可能阻止制药商销售仿制药，而仿制药本可降低消费者的用药成本”。
亲商的最高法院？
今年前几个月的判决中，商业利益集团在最高法院的表现喜忧参半。
在今年迄今最重要的一项裁决中，最高法院2月以6票对3票的多数推翻了唐纳德·特朗普总统的大规模紧急关税令，这对进口商和其他企业来说是重大胜利。
上周，最高法院一致裁定，雪佛龙公司可以对抗一项要求其支付7.4亿美元清理路易斯安那州海岸线环境损害的命令，该损害部分源于其在二战期间为政府开展的工程。
但最高法院在近期其他裁决中也做出了不利于企业的判决，包括周三公布的两项裁决。其中一项裁决允许一名在阿富汗自杀式炸弹袭击中严重受伤的陆军专家起诉一名军事承包商，该承包商在袭击前对袭击者进行了背景调查和监管。另一项裁决则在长期争端中支持密歇根州官员，该争端涉及与多伦多的恩布里奇能源公司就麦基诺水道下方的一条输油管道产生的纠纷。
根据密切追踪最高法院工作的自由派组织宪法问责中心的分析，在约翰·罗伯茨首席大法官领导下的最高法院，在美国商会支持的案件中，有近70%支持企业立场。
“本开庭期的利害关系重大，案件涉及诉诸法院的权利、人权以及行政国家的未来，”该组织首席法律顾问布赖恩·戈罗德表示。“还有许多判决尚未公布，现在就预测所有案件的结果还为时过早，但如果以过往为鉴，大企业可能会继续以普通美国民众的利益为代价获胜。”
去年，最高法院自由派大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊在一份激烈的异议意见中写道，最高法院重启燃料生产商挑战加州汽车排放规则的诉讼，“引发了人们对决策不一致以及本法院是否对企业诉讼当事人采用不同于其他所有人的标准的质疑”。
以7票对2票的多数撰写判决意见的布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官反驳称，对法院先例的审查“驳斥了这一说法”。
最高法院裁决后关税退税流程启动
1:59 • 来源：CNN
最高法院裁决后关税退税流程启动
1:59
“喷洒工”
数十年来，约翰·达内尔每周都会花数小时在圣路易斯社区的公园内喷洒草甘膦。他说自己没有穿戴防护装备，因为他认为没必要。
多年后，达内尔被诊断出患有非霍奇金淋巴瘤，他起诉孟山都，声称自己接触该除草剂是患病的原因。陪审团最终判给他125万美元赔偿。
在民主党和共和党两届政府领导下的美国环境保护署多次得出结论，称草甘膦作为草甘膦的活性成分不会致癌，并拒绝在产品标签上添加癌症警告。
但2015年，国际癌症研究机构将草甘膦归类为“可能对人类致癌”的物质。这一分类引发了针对该公司的大量诉讼。达内尔是起诉孟山都的10万多人之一。
最高法院将于周一听取孟山都上诉案的辩论，案件的争议点在于达内尔指控孟山都违反密苏里州法律，未向客户告知产品的潜在风险。
“尽管孟山都辩称其产品安全，但陪审团认定草甘膦会增加患癌风险，导致达内尔罹患癌症，且从未告知达内尔这一风险，”达内尔的律师在法庭上表示。
孟山都的律师则反驳称，1972年出台的《联邦杀虫剂、杀菌剂和杀鼠剂法》优先于州级标签要求。该公司辩称，这项法律的全部意义在于阻止各州对杀虫剂实施各自为政的标签要求。
该公司已将草甘膦从其消费者版本产品中移除。但草甘膦仍是农民广泛使用的工业版本产品的核心成分。
“一旦美国环境保护署做出判断，标签就是法律，”孟山都在法庭上表示。“不能由普通陪审团依据50个州的法律进行二次评判。”
相关报道 最高法院大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺与凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊 盖蒂图片社 卡瓦诺与杰克逊在紧急案件议程上发生激烈争执 阅读时长3分钟
包括美国商会在内的商业团体表示，如果最高法院支持达内尔，将让其他受类似联邦监管要求约束的行业面临诉讼风险，这可能涉及医疗设备、化妆品、泳池产品，甚至受至少部分联邦标签法规约束的宠物食品。
美国商会警告最高法院，如果不纠正这一趋势，“制造商将频繁面临可能造成毁灭性打击的法律责任”。
“这起案件以及类似案件的利害关系巨大，”该组织表示。
Big business shows up in final days of arguments at Supreme Court
2026-04-24T13:26:52.888Z / CNN
By John Fritze
PUBLISHED Apr 24, 2026, 9:26 AM ET
The US Supreme Court is seen on April 7, 2026.
Rahmat Gul/AP
Big businesses are lining up at the Supreme Court as the justices hear the final arguments of the term, pressing the conservative majority to shield industries from multimillion-dollar jury verdicts, limit the marketing of generic drugs and neuter the government’s ability to issue fines.
Verizon, Monsanto and Cisco Systems are among the companies that have teed up major appeals at the high court this month.
Though the cases deal with vastly different legal issues, taken together, they could have widespread implications for the economy, affecting an expansive range of products from pacemakers to pet food and the ability of consumers and government regulators to hold companies accountable.
Among the most significant is an appeal from Monsanto, the agricultural giant that is fending off lawsuits from thousands of people who say the pesticide Roundup caused their cancer. The company is appealing a verdict that sided with a Missouri man, known to his neighbors as “spray guy,” who got cancer after regularly using the product.
Related article The US Supreme Court is seen through a camera viewfinder on February 20. Aaron Schwartz/Getty Images/File The nine justices are increasingly building their own personal brands outside the court 7 min read
“A ruling for Monsanto would reach far beyond pesticides, stripping states of their authority to protect their own citizens and closing the courthouse doors on people injured by dangerous products across industries,” Matthew Wessler, an attorney at Gupta Wessler who has argued several cases before the high court, told CNN. “This is not what Congress intended, and it would fundamentally undermine the civil justice system’s role in protecting public safety.”
Monsanto was purchased in 2018 by the German company Bayer.
In coming days, Cisco Systems will argue that the justices should limit the scope of a law that is intended to hold companies accountable for human rights abuses overseas. Last week, Verizon and AT&T challenged multimillion-dollar penalties the Federal Communications Commission levied against them for what the agency said was mishandling of customer data.
And in what is likely to be the final case argued before the Supreme Court this term, the maker of a generic drug is battling with the patent holder of Vascepa, a medication used to reduce the risk of heart attacks. The dispute deals with whether Hikma Pharmaceuticals, a London-based company with US headquarters in New Jersey, encouraged infringement of that patent in how it described its generic version in press releases and website posts.
That case has “the potential to deter drug manufacturers from selling generic drugs, which lower costs for consumers,” said Adina Rosenbaum, an attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group, which filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the pharma and Monsanto cases.
Business-friendly court?
Business interests have had a mixed record at the Supreme Court in the first few months of opinions this year.
In its most substantial ruling of the year, a 6-3 majority in February tossed out President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs — a huge win for importers and other companies.
Last week, a unanimous court let Chevron fight an order that it pay $740 million to clean up environmental damage to Louisiana’s coastline caused in part by its work for the government during World War II.
But the justices have sided against companies in other recent rulings, including a pair of decisions handed down Wednesday. One of those allowed an Army specialist who was severely injured by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan to sue a military contractor who had vetted and supervised the attacker before the bombing. The other sided with Michigan officials in a long-running dispute with Toronto-based Enbridge Energy, over a pipeline that runs under the Straits of Mackinac.
Overall, the court under Chief Justice John Roberts has backed the position embraced by the US Chamber of Commerce in nearly 70% of its cases, according to an analysis by the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group that closely tracks the Supreme Court’s work.
“The stakes are high this term, with cases implicating access to courts, human rights, and the future of the administrative state,” said the group’s chief counsel, Brianne Gorod. “With many decisions still outstanding, it’s far too early to know what will happen in all of these cases, but if the past is any guide, big business will likely continue to win at the expense of everyday Americans.”
In a fiery dissent last year, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a member of the court’s liberal bloc, wrote that the court’s decision to revive a lawsuit from fuel producers challenging California’s vehicle emission rules, “invites questions about inconsistent decisionmaking and whether this court is holding business litigants to the same standards as everyone else.”
Writing for a 7-2 majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh shot back that a review of the court’s precedents “disproves that suggestion.”
Tariff refund process begins after Supreme Court ruling
1:59 • Source: CNN
Tariff refund process begins after Supreme Court ruling
1:59
‘Spray guy’
For decades, John Durnell would spend hours every week spraying Roundup in the parks in his St. Louis neighborhood. He didn’t wear protective equipment because, he said, he didn’t think he needed to.
Years later, after Durnell was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, he sued Monsanto, claiming his exposure to the pesticide was to blame. A jury awarded him $1.25 million.
The Environmental Protection Agency under both Democratic and Republican administrations has repeatedly concluded that the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, does not cause cancer and it has declined to require cancer warnings on the product’s labeling.
But in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as an agent that is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” That spurred a flood of lawsuits against the company. Durnell is one of more than 100,000 people who have sued Monsanto.
The issue for the Supreme Court, which will hear arguments in Monsanto’s appeal on Monday, involves Durnell’s allegation that the company violated Missouri law by failing to warn customers about the potential risks of the product.
“Though Monsanto protests that its product is safe, the jury found that Roundup increases the risk of cancer, caused Durnell to develop cancer, and never warned Durnell of this risk,” Durnell’s attorneys told the court.
Monsanto’s lawyers counter that a 1972 law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, preempts state labeling requirements. The whole point of that law, the company has argued, was to bar individual states from imposing a patchwork of labeling requirements on pesticides.
The company has removed glyphosate from the consumer version of its product. But glyphosate remains the central ingredient in industrial versions widely used by farmers.
“Once EPA makes that judgment, the label is the law,” Monsanto told the court. “It cannot be second guessed by lay juries applying the law of 50 states.”
Related article Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson Getty Images Kavanaugh and Jackson appearance gets testy when emergency docket comes up 3 min read
Business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, say that if the Supreme Court sides with Durnell it would open other industries that are subject to similar federal requirements to lawsuits. That potentially includes medical devices, cosmetics, pool products and even pet food subject to at least some federal labeling regulations.
Without a course correction, the Chamber of Commerce warned the justices, “manufacturers will routinely face potentially crushing liability” from lawsuits.
“The stakes of this case, and others like it, are enormous,” the group said.