Food & Water Watch v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

── Food & Water Watch v. United States Environmental Protection Agency ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOOD & WATER WATCH; FLUORIDE No. 25-384 ACTION NETWORK; MOMS AGAINST D.C. No. FLUORIDATION; AUDREY ADAMS, 3:17-cv-02162-EMC individually and on behalf of KYLE ADAMS; KYLE ADAMS; KRISTIN LAVELLE, individually and on behalf of NEAL LAVELLE; NEAL LAVELLE; MEMORANDUM* BRENDA STAUDENMAIER, individually and on behalf of KO STAUDENMAIER and HAYDEN STAUDENMAIER; KO STAUDENMAIER; HAYDEN STAUDENMAIER, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, an agency of the United States; LEE ZELDIN, in his official capacity as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  Argued and Submitted March 3, 2026 San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS, Chief District Judge.** Defendant-Appellant United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) appeals the district court’s finding that adding fluoride to drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L presents an unreasonable risk to human health and ordering EPA to manage the risks in accordance with the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). Plaintiffs-Appellees Food & Water Watch, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) petitioned EPA in 2016 seeking EPA to issue a rule banning the addition of fluoride to drinking water pursuant to Section 21 of TSCA. EPA denied Plaintiffs’ petition. Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit under Section 21’s judicial review provision. 15 U.S.C. § 2620(b)(4)(A). The district court conducted two bench trials. Following the second bench trial, the district court held that the addition of fluoride to drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L presents an unreasonable risk to human health and ordered that EPA manage the risks associated with adding fluoride to drinking water in accordance with TSCA. EPA appealed. EPA argues that the district court erred by (1) taking over the case and holding a second bench trial in violation of the party ** The Honorable Brian M. Morris, United States Chief District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. 2 presentation principle; (2) reviewing an evidentiary record that differed from the record presented to EPA in the Plaintiffs’ original 2016 petition; and (3) ruling that Plaintiffs had Article III standing to bring their claim. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we do not recount the facts in full here except as necessary to provide context for our ruling. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate the district court’s decision and remand. 1. The district court abused its discretion after the first bench trial by commandeering the case. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s adherence to the party presentation principle. United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371, 375 (2020). “In our adversarial system of adjudication, we follow the principle of party presentation.” Id. Under this principle, we “rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties pre