A federal appeals court has overturned a landmark ruling that declared water fluoridation at current U.S. levels presents an “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation under the conditions of use.”
The decision had directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address the health risks associated with fluoride in drinking water.
However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that Senior U.S. District Judge Edward Chen abused his discretion by refusing to rule on the first trial record. The court vacated Chen’s ruling and sent the case back to him in San Francisco with instructions to base its decision solely on evidence presented during the initial bench trial.
The panel criticized Chen for “commandeering” the case, noting that he conducted a second trial based on additional evidence he selected rather than adhering to the parties’ stipulation that the first trial record should be used. The court concluded that Chen violated the party presentation principle—a rule requiring litigants, not judges, to develop the evidentiary record.
The lawsuit began when Food & Water Watch, along with Moms Against Fluoridation and other opponents of water fluoridation, challenged the EPA’s rejection of their petition regarding fluoride’s health risks. In 2020, Judge Chen ruled that fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L presents an unreasonable risk to human health and ordered the EPA to initiate rulemaking.
During appeal, the federal government argued that Chen’s decision incorporated evidence beyond what was presented in the initial petition. The court found that Chen improperly paused the case for over a year to await a study of fluoride’s neurotoxic effects—a study agreed upon by both sides not to be part of the trial.
Mary Holland, president and general counsel at Children’s Health Defense, stated: “A federal court just told a judge to ignore years of fluoride safety data and travel back to 2020. The science didn’t change. The courtroom rules did.”
Michael Connett, partner at Siri & Glimstad representing the plaintiffs, noted that the EPA’s decision to appeal and have the ruling overturned was “a very expansive and unprecedented application” of the party presentation principle. He added: “EPA has thus officially undone a historic opportunity to protect the public from a toxic chemical added to most American water supplies.”
The case also involved Lee Zeldin, who had discretion to stand down on the appeal but chose to continue with it.