Supreme Court Sides With Couple in Case Involving Baby Food Sold at Whole Foods

NYT Homepage

by Abbie VanSickle

February 24, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Texas couple who sued Whole Foods over allegations that tainted baby food caused their son’s health issues. The court agreed to revive the lawsuit, which had been dismissed by a federal judge. The justices unanimously decided that the couple should be able to continue their case in state court. This decision is significant as it reaffirms plaintiffs' rights to choose state courts for such cases, often seen as more favorable to them. The Texas couple, Sarah and Grant Palmquist, claimed their son Ethan suffered severe health problems after consuming Earth’s Best Organic baby food, purchased at Whole Foods. They alleged that tests showed high levels of toxic metals like arsenic and lead in Ethan's system, leading to diagnoses of seizures and autism spectrum disorder. The couple pointed to a 2021 report by the House Oversight Committee, which revealed widespread contamination of commercial baby foods, including Earth’s Best. The case took a legal twist when Whole Foods was initially dismissed from the lawsuit by a federal judge, who ruled that the couple improperly added the grocery chain to keep the case in state court. The judge sided with the defendant, Hain Celestial Group, which argued that the claims against Whole Foods were baseless and designed to manipulate the legal system. On appeal, a federal appeals court found that the trial court had erred by removing Whole Foods from the case. The appellate court sent the case back to state court for reconsideration. Hain Celestial then sought Supreme Court intervention, arguing that the lower courts’ decisions wasted judicial resources and created unnecessary conflicts with other rulings. The Supreme Court’s decision is notable because it underscores the importance of allowing plaintiffs to pursue their claims in the court system they believe will be most fair. This ruling ensures that consumers can seek justice for potential harm caused by products sold in stores, even when large corporations like Whole Foods are involved. The case also highlights ongoing concerns about product safety and transparency in the food industry, particularly for parents who rely on commercial baby foods for their children’s nutrition. For readers interested in news about legal battles involving public health and corporate accountability, this decision has broader implications. It signals that courts will uphold plaintiffs’ rights to seek redress in state courts when they believe their constitutional rights have been violated. The ruling also raises questions about the safety of commercial baby foods

Verticals

newsgeneral

Originally published on NYT Homepage on 2/24/2026