TSCA Fluoride Case has taken a new turn after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a lower court’s decision and sent the matter back for reconsideration. The appellate court ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not improperly influence the trial process, but that the district court made errors in handling evidence and delaying the case. The decision centers on a 2016 petition by environmental groups, which alleged that fluoride in drinking water posed an “unreasonable risk” to public health under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Background of the Litigation
The dispute began when Food & Water Watch and other advocacy groups submitted a petition to the EPA in 2016, asking the agency to evaluate the risks of adding fluoride to public water supplies. The EPA initially denied the petition, arguing that the groups had not shown an “unreasonable risk” under TSCA. The groups then filed a lawsuit, leading to a trial in 2019 where the district court ruled in their favor. In 2024, the court concluded that water fluoridation does pose an unreasonable risk and ordered the EPA to take action.
Related: Executive Order directs fintech payment system review
The EPA appealed, claiming the district court had overstepped its role by delaying the case and using evidence not presented in the original petition. The appellate court agreed that the district court had abused its discretion by holding the case in abeyance to await a new study, despite both parties agreeing to decide the case based on the existing trial record. The court also noted that the lower court had relied on evidence beyond what was included in the 2016 petition, which the EPA had initially objected to.
Procedural and Legal Disputes
One of the key issues in the case was whether the district court violated TSCA Section 21, which allows citizens to petition the EPA to regulate chemicals. The EPA argued that the court had erred by relying on new evidence not presented in the original petition. However, the appellate court ruled that both parties had introduced new evidence during the first trial, which meant the court was not required to limit its analysis to the 2016 petition.
The appellate court also addressed the issue of standing, which refers to whether the plaintiffs had a legal right to sue. The EPA claimed that the groups’ injury was not caused by the addition of fluoride, as they did not seek to remove naturally occurring fluoride from water. The appellate court remanded this issue to the district court, stating that it was best positioned to determine whether to take judicial notice of the EPA’s evidence and how that might affect the plaintiffs’ standing.
Related: Unveiling the Hidden Depths of Legal Reporting
Broader Implications for TSCA
The case highlights a growing tension within the TSCA program. The 2016 amendments to the law expanded the EPA’s responsibilities, requiring the agency to prioritize and evaluate risks from existing chemicals under strict deadlines. At the same time, the citizen petition process under Section 21 allows private groups to bypass some of these steps and push directly to risk management rulemaking. This has created a procedural oddity, as the EPA must rely on its own risk evaluations to craft regulations, but citizen petitions can force the agency to act without that scientific foundation.
The appellate court’s decision leaves the EPA in a difficult position. While the agency is relieved that the lower court’s ruling has been vacated, the underlying statutory issues remain. Each successful citizen petition adds to the EPA’s workload, diverting resources from its core responsibilities. Advocacy groups are likely to continue pushing for direct regulatory action, and future courts may again conduct de novo reviews of “unreasonable risk” determinations—something Congress explicitly assigned to the EPA under TSCA Section 6.
Related: Reversing the Expat Tide: Why Americans Are Repatriating to the US in Record Numbers
Call for Legislative Reform
Lawyers from Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., have urged Congress to consider changes to TSCA Section 21 to align the citizen petition process with the agency’s updated procedures. They suggest that successful petitions should enter the process at the prioritization phase rather than risk management, which could reduce litigation and better manage the EPA’s workload. Such reforms, they argue, could maintain public input while ensuring the agency meets its statutory obligations.
For now, the TSCA Fluoride Case remains a landmark example of the challenges facing the EPA as it balances regulatory demands, judicial oversight, and public health concerns. The outcome may influence how future citizen petitions are handled—and whether the agency can keep pace with the legal and scientific complexities of modern chemical regulation.
