Justices send litigation about tainted baby food back to state court

SCOTUSblog

by Ronald Mann

February 25, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a trial court’s mistaken jurisdictional ruling requires sending the tainted baby food litigation back to state court. The case involves claims that toxic metal in baby food caused harm, with the mother suing both Hain Celestial Group (a Delaware company) and Whole Foods (a Texas retailer). Initially, the inclusion of Whole Foods as a defendant prevented federal jurisdiction due to diversity issues. However, Hain incorrectly removed the case to federal court, dismissing Whole Foods improperly. After the trial court ruled in favor of Hain, the appeals court found the dismissal of Whole Foods erroneous, restoring the case to state court for further proceedings. The Court’s decision hinges on the principle that federal jurisdiction depends on the state of facts at the time of filing. Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized that a district court cannot “cure” a jurisdictional defect if it persists until judgment. While an exception exists when a dismissed party is no longer involved, this case did not meet those criteria because Whole Foods remained in the case temporarily, leaving the jurisdictional flaw unresolved. Sotomayor distinguished this case from *Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis*, where a similar dismissal occurred with consent and before final judgment. Here, the improper removal of Whole Foods meant the defect lingered, invalidating the federal court’s jurisdiction. The Court’s unanimous ruling underscores the importance of properly addressing jurisdictional issues early in litigation to avoid such outcomes. This decision clarifies how courts must handle cases where jurisdictional defects persist, ensuring that appellate courts can overturn lower court rulings when foundational jurisdictional errors occur. Legal experts view this as a significant ruling for understanding federal and state court jurisdictional boundaries, particularly in diversity cases. The case highlights the potential consequences of procedural missteps in litigation and reinforces the need for careful handling of jurisdictional challenges.

Verticals

legalpolitics

Originally published on SCOTUSblog on 2/25/2026