WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with the maker of Roundup weedkiller Thursday in a ruling expected to block thousands of lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people the product could cause cancer.

The case came before the justices after a tidal wave of litigation that included some multibillion-dollar verdicts against Bayer, a German agrochemical manufacturer that acquired Roundup’s original producer, Monsanto, in 2018.

The decision is a victory for President Donald Trump’s administration, which argued in support of Bayer. But it provoked outrage from allies in the ” Make America Healthy Again” movement who want to rein in pesticide use.

The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, held that Roundup cannot be sued in state courts for failure to warn because federal regulators have found a cancer link unlikely and do not require a warning label. Federal law also bars states from imposing additional or different labeling requirements, the opinion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh states.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Neil Gorsuch, dissented, saying that Monsanto could have added a warning without violating federal law.

Though focused on Roundup, the ruling could affect similar health claims against other pesticide products.

“This decision is good for American farmers who help feed the world,” Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said. “It provides the regulatory clarity necessary for innovators like us to develop the agricultural tools that guarantee an affordable food supply.”

Though Bayer said the ruling should result in the dismissal of failure-to-warn lawsuits, the company said it plans to proceed with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement intended to resolve many of the remaining claims.

The ruling was denounced by environmental groups and lawyers representing people who believe they were harmed by Roundup.

“This Supreme Court ruling wrongly slams the courthouse door on Americans sickened by pesticides,” said attorney Christopher Seeger, who is a claimant’s representative in the settlement. But he said a settlement still would allow some people to receive compensation.