The Supreme Court unanimously sided with a Texas couple Tuesday, ruling that Whole Foods was improperly stripped from their lawsuit alleging heavy metals in baby food harmed their child. The 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, upheld a 5th Circuit ruling and sends the case back to the Texas state court where it started.

Sarah and Grant Palmquist sued both Whole Foods and baby food manufacturer Hain Celestial Group after their child, just over two years old at the time, "was diagnosed with a range of physical and mental conditions that some doctors attributed to heavy-metal poisoning," Fox Business reported.

The jurisdictional fight that reached the nation's highest court had nothing to do with heavy metals. It had everything to do with a corporate defendant trying to pick its courtroom.

How a Simple Lawsuit Became a Federal Jurisdiction Battle

The Palmquists filed in Texas state court, alleging product liability and negligence against Hain Celestial, and breach-of-warranty and negligence claims against Whole Foods. Both the Palmquists and Whole Foods are Texas citizens. Hain, based in Delaware and New York, saw an opening and moved to drag the case into federal court.

The problem was basic diversity jurisdiction law. Federal courts can only hear these cases when no adverse parties share a state. The Supreme Court put it plainly:

"Federal courts may exercise diversity jurisdiction only when no adverse party is from the same state, but Whole Foods and the Palmquists are all Texas citizens. As a result, the district court lacked jurisdiction as the case stood upon removal."

Hain's workaround was to argue that Whole Foods never belonged in the lawsuit at all. A district court bought it, dismissed Whole Foods from the case, and kept the matter in federal court. The 5th Circuit reversed. Now the Supreme Court has confirmed that reversal without a single dissent.

Corporations Don't Get to Choose Their Courtroom

This case is a clean illustration of why jurisdictional rules exist. Hain Celestial manufactured the baby food. Whole Foods sold it. The Palmquists had claims against both. Rather than face those claims in the state court where the family filed, Hain attempted to sever the retailer from the suit and retreat to federal court, a forum often perceived as more favorable to corporate defendants.

The district court enabled that maneuver. Two higher courts, unanimously, said no.

The ruling does not address whether Hain's baby food actually contained dangerous levels of heavy metals or whether the Palmquists' child was harmed by them. Those questions now return to Texas. But the procedural victory matters. Parents alleging their child was poisoned by a product should not have to watch a corporate defendant strip away co-defendants to engineer a more convenient venue.

The Bigger Picture on Baby Food Safety

The underlying allegations carry weight beyond this single family. The Supreme Court noted that in 2021, a U.S. House subcommittee released a staff report finding that certain baby foods, including Hain's, "contained elevated levels of toxic heavy metals." That congressional report triggered widespread concern among parents and renewed scrutiny of an industry that had largely policed itself.

Whole Foods built its brand on the promise of cleaner, healthier products. That brand now faces a direct test in a Texas courtroom. Consumers who pay premium prices for groceries marketed as safer alternatives deserve to know whether those promises hold up, not just in advertising copy, but under oath.

Nine justices agreed this family deserves their day in court. Now they get it.