The Facts

E.P. was born in 2014 in Texas. For the first two years of his life, his parents Sarah and Grant Palmquist fed him baby food manufactured by Hain Celestial Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation with headquarters in New York. They purchased the products from Whole Foods Market, Inc., a Texas-based retailer.

E.P. developed normally at first. He was a healthy child. Then, at 2½ years old, something changed. He began exhibiting serious developmental disorders. Doctors diagnosed him with a range of physical and mental conditions. Blood tests revealed high levels of arsenic, lead, and mercury. Some doctors attributed E.P.’s conditions to heavy metal poisoning.

In February 2021, years after E.P.’s diagnosis, a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform released a staff report titled “Baby Foods Are Tainted With Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury.” The report specifically identified Hain’s baby food products as containing elevated levels of toxic heavy metals.

Following the report’s release, the Palmquists sued both Hain and Whole Foods in Texas state court. Against Hain, they alleged product liability and negligence. Against Whole Foods, they alleged breach of warranty and negligence based on Whole Foods’s alleged misrepresentation of Hain’s products as safe for consumption.

Hain removed the case to federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a), which allows federal courts to hear cases where the parties are from different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

There was a problem. The Palmquists were Texas citizens. Whole Foods was also a Texas citizen. Under the doctrine of “complete diversity,” federal courts can only exercise jurisdiction if no plaintiff shares state citizenship with any defendant. When the case was removed, complete diversity did not exist.

Hain argued in its notice of removal that Whole Foods had been “improperly joined” and should be dismissed. If Whole Foods were out of the case, only diverse parties would remain: the Palmquists (Texas), and Hain (Delaware and New York). The District Court agreed. It dismissed Whole Foods and denied the Palmquists’ motion to remand the case back to state court.

The case went to trial in federal court against Hain alone. After the Palmquists rested their case, Hain moved for judgment as a matter of law on all claims. The District Court granted the motion in full, ruling that the Palmquists had failed to present sufficient evidence to prove causation. Specifically, the court stated the Palmquists presented no evidence that “the ingestion of heavy metals can cause the array of symptoms that [E.P.] suffers from, much less any evidence of at what level those metals would have to be ingested to bring about those symptoms.”

The Palmquists appealed both the dismissal of Whole Foods and the judgment in Hain’s favor.

The Misconduct

The Improper Joinder Scheme

The Fifth Circuit reversed. It held that Whole Foods had been properly joined because the Palmquists had plausibly alleged that Whole Foods violated Texas law by misrepresenting Hain’s products as safe. Given that Whole Foods had been erroneously dismissed, complete diversity never existed. The District Court lacked jurisdiction. The judgment in Hain’s favor had to be vacated.

The legal maneuver Hain used is called the “improper joinder” doctrine (sometimes called “fraudulent joinder” even when no fraud occurred). Under this doctrine, a defendant removing a case to federal court can ask the federal judge to assess whether the plaintiff’s claims against a nondiverse defendant are strong enough to proceed. If the judge thinks the claims are too weak, the nondiverse defendant gets dismissed, diversity is restored, and the case stays in federal court.

Here’s the constitutional problem Justice Thomas identified in his concurring opinion: federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They can only hear the cases Congress grants them power to hear. To determine whether they have jurisdiction, they must look at the state of facts that existed at the time of filing or removal. If a nondiverse defendant is in the case at the time of removal, the federal court lacks jurisdiction. Period.

“For a court to pronounce upon the merits when it has no jurisdiction to do so is, by very definition, for a court to act ultra vires.”

— Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 101-102 (1998)

But the improper joinder doctrine requires federal courts to do exactly that: assess the merits of claims over which they have no jurisdiction. The court evaluates the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claims against the nondiverse defendant, decides those claims are unlikely to succeed, and dismisses the defendant to create jurisdiction that did not exist at removal.

Justice Thomas wrote: “The doctrine appears to allow federal courts to enlarge their jurisdiction by assessing the merits of claims over which they lack jurisdiction.” He traced the doctrine’s origins to early-20th-century cases like Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Thompson, 200 U.S. 206 (1906), which dealt only with actual fraud or bad faith by the plaintiff, such as lying about a party’s citizenship. Those precedents did not authorize federal courts to dismiss nondiverse parties based on the weakness of the claims against them.

The Verdict That Should Never Have Happened imo

After dismissing Whole Foods, the District Court proceeded to trial against Hain. The Palmquists presented their case. Hain moved for judgment as a matter of law. The judge granted it, ruling that the Palmquists failed to prove causation.

That judgment was the product of a court that lacked jurisdiction to enter it. When the Fifth Circuit reversed the improper joinder ruling, it restored Whole Foods to the case. That restoration destroyed complete diversity. The jurisdictional defect that existed at the time of removal “lingered through judgment” uncured. Under Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 77 (1996), the judgment “must be vacated.”

Hain argued to the Supreme Court that the correctness of the dismissal was irrelevant because the parties were completely diverse by the time of final judgment. The Court rejected this. A district court cannot create jurisdiction through its own mistakes. Allowing that would permit courts to enlarge their jurisdiction beyond the limits Congress imposed.

“Federal courts possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not actually to be expanded by judicial decree.”

— Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)

Why This Matters

Hain’s strategy was procedural warfare. Remove the case to federal court. Kick out the retailer. Face a federal judge instead of a state jury. Win on a technicality. Even if you lose on appeal, you’ve delayed justice for years.

The Palmquists filed their lawsuit after the 2021 Congressional report. The Supreme Court decision came down in February 2026. That’s five years of litigation over jurisdiction before the family even gets a shot at a trial on the merits in the forum they chose.

Corporate defendants use the improper joinder doctrine to forum-shop. Plaintiffs file in state court because they believe a jury of their peers will deliver justice. Defendants remove to federal court and manufacture jurisdiction by convincing a federal judge that one of the defendants doesn’t belong. The plaintiff loses their chosen forum. The case gets slower, more expensive, and statistically less likely to result in a plaintiff verdict.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion, written by Justice Sotomayor, closed this loophole. If a district court erroneously dismisses a nondiverse defendant, that dismissal does not cure a jurisdictional defect. The case must be remanded to state court.

But the deeper issue remains. As Justice Thomas noted, the improper joinder doctrine itself may be unconstitutional. In a future case where the issue is squarely presented, the Court should consider whether federal courts have any authority to assess the merits of claims against nondiverse parties in the first place.

The Non-Financial Ledger

E.P. is not a case number. He is a child. His parents are not litigants. They are Sarah and Grant Palmquist, two people who did what parents are supposed to do: feed their child food they believed was safe.

E.P. was developing normally. Then he wasn’t. The change happened when he was 2½ years old. Imagine being the parent watching your child’s development stall, regress, or fracture. Imagine the doctor visits, the specialists, the blood tests. Imagine the moment a doctor tells you your child has high levels of arsenic, lead, and mercury in his blood. Imagine learning that the baby food you bought at Whole Foods, from a company with a reputation for “natural” and “organic” products, was contaminated.

The Palmquists did not ask for this. They trusted the manufacturer. They trusted the retailer. They trusted the regulatory system that is supposed to prevent this exact scenario.

Then they had to fight for five years just to get their case heard in the court system they chose. Not because their claims were meritless. Not because they lacked evidence. But because a baby food corporation with expensive lawyers knew how to manipulate federal jurisdiction rules.

Hain Celestial Group is still in business. Whole Foods is still selling baby food. E.P. is still living with the conditions doctors attributed to heavy metal poisoning. The Congressional report that confirmed the contamination was released in 2021. No federal law has been passed to ban heavy metals in baby food. The FDA has issued voluntary guidance. Voluntary.

The Palmquists are one family. The Congressional report identified contamination across multiple brands and products. How many other children were fed toxic baby food? How many other families are dealing with developmental disorders, medical bills, and the slow collapse of the life they imagined for their child?

This is what the non-financial ledger looks like. A child who should have been protected by the companies that manufactured and sold his food. A family that should have been able to trust the labels on the jars. A regulatory system that failed. A court system that let a corporation delay accountability for five years using a procedural trick.

E.P. will grow up knowing his case went to the Supreme Court. He will grow up knowing nine justices ruled unanimously in his family’s favor. But he will also grow up with whatever lasting effects the heavy metals caused. No Supreme Court opinion can reverse that.

Legal Receipts

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and their proceedings are erroneous, if the jurisdiction be not shown upon them.”

— Kempe’s Lessee v. Kennedy, 5 Cranch 173, 185 (1809) (Marshall, C.J.)

“Because of this limitation on federal courts’ authority, a federal court of appeals must satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also of that of the lower courts in a cause under review.”

— Mitchell v. Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934)

“If the court of appeals concludes that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the case when it was filed in or removed to federal court, then the court of appeals typically must vacate any judgment on the merits.”

— Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, Syllabus at 2 (U.S. Feb. 24, 2026)

“The District Court’s erroneous dismissal of Whole Foods did not cure the jurisdictional defect that existed when this case was removed to federal court.”

— Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, Slip Op. at 1 (U.S. Feb. 24, 2026)

“This Court has never held that a district court can create jurisdiction through its own mistakes. A rule to the contrary would permit courts to enlarge their jurisdiction beyond the limits Congress imposed.”

— Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, Slip Op. at 8 (U.S. Feb. 24, 2026)

“The plaintiff is the master of the complaint and generally has the right to choose whether to proceed in federal or state court.”

— Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 35 (2025)

“The doctrine appears to allow federal courts to enlarge their jurisdiction by assessing the merits of claims over which they lack jurisdiction.”

— Justice Thomas, concurring, Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, Slip Op. at 1 (U.S. Feb. 24, 2026)

“For a court to pronounce upon the merits when it has no jurisdiction to do so is, by very definition, for a court to act ultra vires.”

— Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 101-102 (1998)

Societal Impact Mapping

Public Health

The 2021 Congressional report titled “Baby Foods Are Tainted With Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury” was not an anomaly. It was the result of a multi-year investigation by the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform. The report identified dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals in baby food products from multiple manufacturers, including Hain Celestial.

Heavy metal exposure in infants and toddlers is not a minor issue. Arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury are neurotoxins. They cause irreversible damage to developing brains. The effects include cognitive impairment, developmental delays, behavioral disorders, and reduced IQ. The damage is permanent.

Infants and toddlers are uniquely vulnerable. Their bodies absorb heavy metals at higher rates than adults. Their brains are in critical stages of development. A level of exposure that might cause mild symptoms in an adult can cause severe, lifelong harm in a child.

The Congressional report recommended that the FDA set maximum levels for toxic heavy metals in baby food and require mandatory testing by manufacturers. As of February 2026, the FDA has not implemented these recommendations. The guidance remains voluntary. Manufacturers are not required to test for heavy metals. They are not required to disclose test results. Parents have no way of knowing whether the baby food they purchase is contaminated.

This is a systemic failure. The regulatory framework designed to protect children from toxic substances in food is broken. Voluntary compliance does not work when compliance costs money and non-compliance has no consequences.

Economic Inequality

The Palmquists had the resources to hire lawyers, file a lawsuit, and fight through five years of procedural combat. Most families do not.

Product liability litigation is expensive. It requires expert witnesses, extensive discovery, and the ability to front costs for years before any recovery. Plaintiffs’ lawyers typically work on contingency, meaning they take a percentage of any settlement or verdict. But they still need to cover upfront costs, and they need to assess whether the case is worth the investment.

Cases involving corporate removal to federal court are more expensive and more time-consuming than cases that stay in state court. Federal procedure is more complex. Federal judges are often more deferential to corporate defendants. The statistical win rate for plaintiffs in federal court is lower than in state court.

When corporations use procedural tactics to remove cases to federal court, delay proceedings, and increase litigation costs, they are pricing out plaintiffs. Families without significant resources cannot afford to fight. They settle for pennies or walk away. The corporations win by attrition.

The improper joinder doctrine is a wealth filter. It allows corporations to transform a straightforward state-court case into a multi-year federal jurisdiction battle. Only plaintiffs with lawyers who can afford to fight that battle get their day in court. Everyone else gets nothing.

Environmental Degradation

Heavy metals in baby food do not appear spontaneously. They come from the ingredients. The ingredients come from soil, water, and agricultural inputs contaminated with industrial pollutants.

Arsenic contaminates soil and groundwater through decades of industrial activity, mining runoff, and the use of arsenic-based pesticides (which were legal in the United States until 2013). Lead enters the food system through contaminated soil near former industrial sites, lead-painted structures, and lead-containing fertilizers. Cadmium accumulates in soil through the use of phosphate fertilizers and industrial emissions. Mercury enters the environment through coal-fired power plants, mining operations, and industrial waste.

The baby food industry sources ingredients from agricultural systems built on contaminated land. Manufacturers know this. They test for heavy metals in raw ingredients. They know the contamination levels. They make business decisions about acceptable contamination thresholds based on cost, not safety.

The environmental cost of industrial contamination is borne by children. Generations of pollution decisions made by corporations and regulators have poisoned the soil, water, and air. Those decisions are now poisoning the food supply. The victims are infants who have no choice, no voice, and no recourse.

What Now?

Corporate Leadership

The Supreme Court opinion does not name individual executives or board members at Hain Celestial Group or Whole Foods Market. The source material does not provide those names. What is clear is that corporate leadership at both companies allowed contaminated baby food to reach consumers, knew about the contamination (or should have known through standard testing protocols), and chose procedural warfare over accountability when a family sued.

Leadership at Hain Celestial made the decision to remove the case to federal court. Leadership approved the legal strategy to dismiss Whole Foods. Leadership signed off on five years of litigation to avoid a state court jury. Those were not decisions made by low-level employees. Those were strategic decisions made at the top.

Regulatory Watchlist

The following agencies have jurisdiction over baby food safety, heavy metal contamination, and corporate accountability in this case:

• Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Primary authority over food safety, including baby food. Has failed to set mandatory limits for heavy metals in baby food despite Congressional recommendations.
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Authority over industrial contamination, pesticide regulation, and environmental remediation of contaminated agricultural land.
• Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC): Authority over consumer product safety standards and recalls.
• Federal Trade Commission (FTC): Authority over false and deceptive advertising, including health and safety claims on food packaging.
• Department of Justice (DOJ): Authority to prosecute corporate fraud, consumer protection violations, and violations of federal food safety laws.

What You Can Do

If you have a young child, assume all baby food contains some level of heavy metal contamination until proven otherwise. The Congressional report and independent testing by organizations like the Clean Label Project have found contamination across brands, including products marketed as “organic” and “natural.”

Advocate for federal legislation requiring mandatory testing and maximum allowable limits for heavy metals in baby food. Contact your representatives in Congress. Demand they support the Baby Food Safety Act and similar legislation.

Support grassroots organizations working on food safety and environmental justice. Organizations like the Environmental Working Group (EWG), Healthy Babies Bright Futures, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest track contamination, lobby for regulatory reform, and publish independent testing results.

If your child has been harmed by contaminated baby food, consult a product liability attorney in your state. Do not allow a corporation to remove your case to federal court without a fight. The Supreme Court has now made clear that erroneous dismissals of nondiverse defendants do not cure jurisdictional defects. Use this precedent.

Organize mutual aid networks to share information about food safety, support families dealing with developmental disorders linked to environmental toxins, and build collective power to demand corporate accountability. The regulatory system has failed. The legal system is designed to favor corporations. The only reliable source of accountability is organized collective action.