Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist
Docket number: 24-724
Term: 2025
Court: United States Supreme Court
Important dates
Argument: November 4, 2025
Court membership
Chief Justice John RobertsClarence ThomasSamuel AlitoSonia SotomayorElena KaganNeil GorsuchBrett KavanaughAmy Coney BarrettKetanji Brown Jackson

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist is a case scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 4, 2025, during the court's October 2025-2026 term.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The questions presented: "1. Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal. 2. Whether a plaintiff may defeat diversity jurisdiction after removal by amending the complaint to add factual allegations that state a colorable claim against a nondiverse party when the complaint at the time of removal did not state such a claim"[1]
  • The outcome: The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.

  • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[2]

    • Petitioner: The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.
      • Legal counsel: Sarah Elaine Harrington (Covington & Burling LLP)
    • Respondent: Sarah Palmquist, Individually and as Next Friend of E.P.
      • Legal counsel: Russell S. Post (Beck Redden LLP)

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez

    Grant and Sarah Palmquist’s son Ethan developed normally until about 30 months of age, when he experienced sudden and severe developmental regression, including cognitive, behavioral, and physical impairments. He was later diagnosed with a range of conditions—some physical, like seizures and hypotonia, and others mental, like autism and neurocognitive disorders. Tests also revealed high levels of toxic heavy metals in Ethan’s system, which some physicians attributed to heavy-metal poisoning. The Palmquists linked his symptoms to his nearly exclusive consumption of Earth’s Best Organic baby food—manufactured by Hain Celestial Group, Inc. and sold by Whole Foods Market, Inc.—from infancy through toddlerhood. In 2021, a U.S. House Oversight Committee report revealed that Hain’s baby foods contained high levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury and that Hain had not tested final products for such contaminants until 2019.

    In 2021, the Palmquists sued Hain and Whole Foods in Texas state court, raising various state-law claims. Hain removed the case to federal court, alleging that Whole Foods had been improperly joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The district court agreed, dismissed Whole Foods, and denied the Palmquists’ motion to remand. It later granted judgment as a matter of law for Hain during trial. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the Palmquists had adequately stated claims against Whole Foods, defeating diversity jurisdiction. It vacated the judgment and remanded the case with instructions to return it to state court.[3]

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • November 4, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument.
    • April 28, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • January 7, 2025: The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • May 28, 2024: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas’s judgment denying the Palmquists’ motion to remand. It also vacated and remanded the case to the Texas state court.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]

    Questions presented:
    1. Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal. 2. Whether a plaintiff may defeat diversity jurisdiction after removal by amending the complaint to add factual allegations that state a colorable claim against a nondiverse party when the complaint at the time of removal did not state such a claim[3]

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of the case will be posted here when it is made available.

    Transcript

    A transcript of the case will be posted here when it is made available.

    Outcome

    The case is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    October term 2025-2026

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 6, 2025. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions by mid-June.[4]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes