Health Law Daily Wrap Up, FOOD—U.S.: Supreme Court allows case involving alleged toxic baby food to advance, (Feb 24, 2026)

By Cathleen Calhoun, J.D.

On the improper removal of Whole Foods from the case, the Supreme Court noted that it “has never held that a district court can create jurisdiction through its own mistakes.”

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Fifth Circuit that Whole Foods was improperly removed from a case involving allegations of harm caused by baby food and that the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case since two parties were not diverse. The case was brought in Texas by the Palmquists, parents of a child who exclusively ate the baby food at issue and who, at age two, “began exhibiting serious developmental disorders and was diagnosed with a range of physical and mental conditions that some doctors attributed to heavy-metal poisoning.” Whole Foods, the distributor of baby food, is also located in Texas, but Hain Celestial Group, Inc. (Hain), the manufacturer of the baby food at issue, is located in Delaware and New York. Hain argued that since Whole Foods was removed from the case, the district court’s ruling could stand since the parties were completely diverse at the time of judgment. The court disagreed, noting that the plaintiffs, the Palmquists, did not want Whole Foods removed, and that the district court could not create jurisdiction by improperly removing Whole Foods (Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, No. 24-724 (U.S. Feb. 24, 2026)).

Baby food. During the first two years of the Palmquists’ child’s life, he almost exclusively consumed Hain’s Earth’s Best Organic Products, that the Palmquists purchased from Whole Foods. Some physicians attributed the child’s symptoms to autism spectrum disorder or neurocognitive disorder, while others diagnosed him with heavy metal poisoning. In 2021, a House Oversight and Reform Committee report found that certain baby foods, including Hain’s, contained elevated levels of toxic heavy metals.

Lawsuit. The parents attributed the high levels of toxic metals that appeared in their son’s blood tests to his consumption of Earth’s Best Organic Products and sued Hain and Whole Foods in state court. Hain removed the case to federal court, contending that Whole Foods was improperly joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The parents filed an amended complaint to clarify their allegations and argued that they had viable claims against Whole Foods under the Texas Product Liability Act and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. After determining that the parents failed to present evidence of general causation, the district court dismissed Whole Foods as improperly joined and granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of Hain. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed, ruling in the Palmquists’ favor, and allowed them to start again in state court. Hain appealed and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a divide among the Courts of Appeals on whether vacatur is required in these circumstances.

Analysis. The court noted that the case is asking if a district court’s erroneous dismissal of a nondiverse party before final judgment can cure a jurisdictional defect that existed when the case was removed to federal court. The court found that it cannot, affirming the Fifth Circuit. And, because the jurisdictional defect lingered through judgment, the judgment “must be vacated.”

Hain argued that the district court ruling must stand because: (1) removal was proper since Whole Foods was improperly joined and must be dismissed, leaving complete diversity; (2) the correctness of the district court’s dismissal is irrelevant because, like in Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis (Caterpillar), 519 U. S. 61, the parties were completely diverse by the time of final judgment; (3) it would be wasteful to send this case back to state court; and (4) even if the jurisdictional defect was not cured, Whole Foods should now be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The court disagreed with Hain on all arguments.

According to the court, the district court’s dismissal of Whole Foods as improperly joined was both erroneous and “[i]nterlocutory” meaning it “merge[d] into the final judgment” for “revie[w] on appeal.” The court found that since the Palmquists and Whole Foods were both Texas citizens, the district court lacked jurisdiction and could not cure that by dismissing Whole Foods as improperly joined. Since Whole Foods was not correctly dismissed, the interlocutory nature of that dismissal meant that the dismissal was reversible on appeal. The Fifth Circuit restored Whole Foods to the case when it reversed the district court’s error, according to the court.

Hain’s argument that the correctness of the district court’s dismissal is irrelevant because, like in Caterpillar, the parties were completely diverse by the time of final judgment, also failed. The court stated it “has never held that a district court can create jurisdiction through its own mistakes.”

On wastefulness, the court found that argument irrelevant. According to the court, “The ‘considerations of finality, efficiency, and economy’ recognized in Caterpillar, 519 U. S., at 75, however, were relevant only to excusing noncompliance with the removal statute’s requirement of complete diversity at the time of removal after a jurisdictional defect has been properly and finally cured.”

Finally, Hain’s argument that Whole Foods should now be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, which permits a federal court to “add or drop a party” “on just terms,” did not apply. Here, Hain, the defendant, is seeking dismissal of another, nondiverse defendant. The identity of the party asking for the dismissal is important because the plaintiff, according to the court, “generally has the right to choose whether to proceed in federal or state court.”

The case is No. 24-724.

Attorneys: Russell S. Post (Beck Redden, L.L.P.) for Sarah Palmquist and Grant Palmquist. Sarah E. Harrington (Covington & Burling, L.L.P.) for Hain Celestial Group, Inc.

Companies: Hain Celestial Group, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory CaseDecisions SupremeCtNews FoodNews FoodSafetyNews FoodStandardsNews GCNNews PLDrugNews