A federal appeals court on Thursday reversed a landmark ruling that ordered the EPA to address health risks from fluoride in drinking water, handing the agency a victory in a seven-year legal battle that has influenced federal policy and White House politics.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the district court judge abused his discretion by “directing” the case, delaying sentencing, and requiring new evidence and a second court trial. The disposition in an unsigned memorandum issued Thursday sent the case back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, this time for resentencing based solely on the trial court’s record.
Thursday’s ruling follows a controversial 2024 ruling by Senior District Judge Edward Chen, who presented a lengthy analysis that found federally recommended levels of fluoride in drinking water posed an “unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.” This decision triggered a federal rulemaking process under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
This was an unusual example of the judicial system disagreeing with the EPA on science.
“The district court’s ‘hijacking’ of the presentation of evidence” ultimately amounts to an “abuse of discretion,” the judges said in Thursday’s Court of Appeals ruling. “Here, the district court effectively presented its own facts,” the memo states.
Judges Sidney Thomas and Ronald Gould, appointed by Mr. Clinton, appeared on the panel for oral arguments in March, along with Mr. Obama’s appointee, Chief Judge Brian Morris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.
The decision sets no precedent and does not address the science behind Chen’s discovery. It also declined to address legal issues related to the TSCA citizen petition.
The case returned to Chen with a narrower evidentiary record. That evidence does not include research that came to light in the years between the two trials or the final National Toxicology Program monograph that provided much of the evidence supporting Chen’s decision.
“Based on a thorough analysis, the Ninth Circuit panel concluded that the district court violated the party presentation doctrine and ordered the court to go back to August 2020 and base its decision on the record that existed at that time,” said Michael Connett, a partner at Shiri & Grimstad, who is representing the anti-fluoride plaintiffs.
“EPA did not dispute the factual merits of Judge Chen’s unreasonable risk determination, and therefore the Ninth Circuit does not,” Connett continued.
“We will consider our legal options in the coming days, including the possibility of filing a petition for certification with the Supreme Court,” Connett said.
The EPA’s press office said in an email that it is “reviewing the Ninth Circuit’s decision.”
The ruling party is already making that move, as the EPA and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are already moving in parallel to reevaluate the safety of fluoride. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin launched a review of the science behind the Safe Drinking Water Act last spring.
President Kennedy has long challenged decades of federal science that says fluoride should be added to drinking water systems for its teeth-strengthening effects. Independent researchers say the oral health benefits of fluoride are primarily local, with evidence pointing to neurological damage in fetuses and children under 6 years of age when ingested even at recommended levels.
Several communities and at least two states, Utah and Florida, have since voted to end water fluoridation, largely through the power of President Kennedy and his “Make America Healthy Again” movement.
Contact the reporter for the encrypted messaging app Signal at eborst.64.
