In their latest motion to the court, EPA tried to argue that the plaintiffs lacked standing; a motion they had previously made and were denied. In this ruling, the motion was dismissed due to being premature and procedurally improper. The Court did not make a definitive ruling on standing itself. The ruling also stated that the EPA will be allowed to challenge any amendments to our list of plaintiffs, if we choose to make any.
You can read the court order with the ruling here.
Legal counsel for both parties were originally scheduled to meet on January 7th to discuss the EPA’s motion, but that hearing was cancelled because the Court felt it could make a ruling based on the written arguments submitted and didn’t require further oral testimony.
The case continues to be in abeyance pending a response from the EPA to our updated petition, which is expected in the coming weeks. The EPA could agree with our petition and initiate the rule making process to protect vulnerable subpopulations from fluoridation chemicals, or they could ignore it or deny it, resulting in additional hearings and filings. We are also expecting the NTP to publish a further updated draft of their neurotoxicity review in the next month or so.
Thank you to those who have supported this precedent-setting litigation. As we can all attest, legal recourse takes time, but with each small victory like this dismissal, we inch closer to a final positive outcome.
Fluoride Action Network