National Law Review reported on the judgment:
In rejecting the EPA’s motion, the court specifically held that the expression “de novo proceeding” suggests that Congress planned a broad scope of evaluation due to the fact that the word “proceeding” incorporates all routine activities of a suit.
This refers to the discovery beyond the administrative record. Because the function of the TSCA is to protect the public from chemicals that present unnecessary risks on peoples health and the environment, the court held that” [a] de novo proceeding in district court imitated traditional trial-like proceedings would not conflict with the function of the TSCA, however, would rather effectuate it.”
The court’s ruling indicates that the trial will now have larger ramifications for the legality of water fluoridation.
If the union of fluoride challengers achieves success in their claim, the EPA may be required to reassess the petition to ban water fluoridation.
This is a great victory!