Supreme Court to Consider Jurisdictional Redo in Baby Food Suit

The US Supreme Court agreed to consider whether a state court must start anew whenever an appellate court decides, after extensive litigation on the merits, that a federal trial court erroneously decided it had jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

The justices on Monday agreed to consider a case against Hain Celestial Group brought by parents who say their child developed autism after consuming the company’s baby food.

Sarah and Grant Palmquist originally brought their case in Texas state court, suing Hain and Texas-based Whole Foods Market, Inc., which sells the baby food at its stores.

Hain, a New York and Delaware food producer, successfully removed the case to federal court, saying Whole Foods wasn’t a proper party. The federal trial court agreed, finding the removal of Whole Foods gave the court diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear a dispute when one of the parties isn’t “at home” in the state jurisdiction.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated an award in favor of Hain, despite extensive litigation in the federal courts, including a two-week trial.

The case is The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, U.S., No. 24-724.