Whole Foods Market will now face a lawsuit in Texas over baby food products after the US Supreme Court unanimously upheld a lower court ruling, returning the case to state court.
The decision comes from a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday, affirming the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' judgment.
The lawsuit was filed by Texas parents Sarah and Grant Palmquist, who allege that their child, then just over 2 years old, developed physical and mental conditions linked to heavy-metal exposure from baby food sold at Whole Foods and produced by Hain Celestial Group.
A 2021 US House of Representatives staff report found elevated levels of toxic metals in certain baby foods, including Hain's, prompting the Palmquists to take legal action.
The parents originally filed claims against both Hain and Whole Foods in Texas state court.
According to FoxBusiness, Hain, a company based in Delaware and New York, attempted to move the case to federal court, arguing that Whole Foods should be removed because federal courts handle cases between parties from different states.
However, both Whole Foods and the Palmquists are Texas residents, making federal jurisdiction inappropriate.
"Federal courts may exercise diversity jurisdiction only when no adverse party is from the same state, but Whole Foods and the Palmquists are all Texas citizens," the Supreme Court explained in its opinion.
Supreme Court unanimously rebukes lower court's handling of Whole Foods baby food case https://t.co/kHw1KwJuRK
— FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) February 24, 2026
Court Rejects Bid to Remove Whole Foods From Suit
Hain's efforts to exclude Whole Foods initially succeeded in a district court, but the Palmquists appealed.
The 5th Circuit rejected the lower court's ruling, stating that Whole Foods was properly joined in the lawsuit and that the case should remain in state court.
The Supreme Court's ruling on Tuesday affirmed this decision, allowing the parents to continue pursuing their claims against both defendants.
Justice Sotomayor emphasized the Palmquists' right to choose a state court forum.
"The Palmquists exercised their right to choose a state forum by purposefully and properly joining a nondiverse defendant against whom they could not proceed in federal court," she wrote, Yahoo reported.
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, noting that federal courts have historically been limited to cases with "complete diversity" of citizenship and that improper-joinder doctrines should not allow dismissal of state-resident defendants.
Join the Conversation