The Supreme Court issued a jurisdictional ruling Feb. 24 in *Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist*, resolving questions about where a product liability lawsuit involving baby food contaminated with toxic heavy metals can proceed.

The underlying case involves 2½-year-old E.P., whose parents Sarah and Grant Palmquist fed him baby food manufactured by Hain Celestial Group and purchased from Whole Foods Market. When E.P. began exhibiting serious developmental disorders, doctors diagnosed him with a range of physical and mental conditions that some attributed to heavy-metal poisoning.

The legal dispute gained momentum following a 2021 staff report from a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee that found certain baby foods, including products made by Hain, contained elevated levels of toxic heavy metals. The congressional findings provided crucial evidence for the Palmquists' subsequent legal action.

Following the report's release, the Palmquists filed suit against both Hain Celestial and Whole Foods, seeking damages for their son's alleged injuries. However, the case became entangled in jurisdictional disputes about whether it belonged in federal or state court.

The Supreme Court's ruling clarifies when federal courts can hear cases involving multiple defendants from different states. Under federal diversity jurisdiction rules, all defendants must be from different states than all plaintiffs for a case to proceed in federal court.

The Court's decision resolves the jurisdictional question but does not address the merits of whether the baby food actually caused the child's developmental problems. The case will now return to state court, where the substantive product liability claims will be decided.

The ruling has implications for similar baby food litigation nationwide, as it establishes clearer guidelines for where such cases can be heard.