The Supreme Court issued a 7-2 ruling in June 2026 in Monsanto v. Durnell, holding that federal pesticide law preempts certain state failure-to-warn claims about Roundup. This decision blocked thousands of pending cases across the country. Gleick is criticizing this ruling as part of a broader pattern of the Court restricting civil rights and scientific claims. What's worth noting: the decision does reflect a legitimate debate about how courts should handle mass tort litigation, scientific evidence, and the balance between federal regulatory authority and state liability law. However, Gleick's framing uses value-laden language — characterizing the Court as "destroying" democracy, rights, or science — rather than sticking to what the ruling actually does. Whether you think the decision is good or bad policy depends on how you weigh manufacturer protection against plaintiff access to courts, but that's a question of values, not settled fact. Gleick collapses multiple separate legal areas (voting rights, transgender sports, religious liberty, product liability) into one narrative of institutional hostility, which treats distinct doctrinal questions as evidence of a unified agenda — a conclusion that goes beyond what any single ruling can demonstrate.