The Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist
The court held that, when a federal court cannot cure a jurisdictional defect in a case that is removed from state to federal court, the federal court's decision must be vacated and returned to state court.
607 U.S. 421 · No. 24-724 · 2025 term · Roberts Court
Decided Feb 24, 2026 · argued Nov 4, 2025
Judicial power · Miscellaneous judicial power, especially diversity jurisdiction
Majority opinion: Sonia Sotomayor
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed. The Hain Celestial Group lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
The Hain Celestial Group was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, 607 U.S. 421 (2026), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, when a federal court cannot cure a jurisdictional defect in a case that is removed from state to federal court, the federal court's decision must be vacated and returned to state court. Particularly, the federal court in this case dismissed a party in an attempt to exercise diversity jurisdiction, but the dismissal was erroneous. Thus, the Supreme Court invalidated the federal court's determinations and returned the case to state court.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their provisional Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2025 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Sonia SotomayorWrote the majority opinion
Clarence ThomasWrote a concurrence
Ketanji JacksonJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Brett KavanaughJoined the majority
Amy BarrettJoined the majority
Neil GorsuchJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The 2025 scores are provisional. The official Martin–Quinn release does not cover this term yet, so the scores are copied from Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin & Michael J. Nelson, Provisional Data Report on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 Term, Table 3.1 (scores by Kevin Quinn), published 2026-06-30. They will be replaced by the official scores when those come out, and may change. The median line is the middle of these nine scores.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- The Hain Celestial GroupFood, meat packing, or processing company, stockyard
- Respondent
- PalmquistPhysically injured person, including wrongful death, who is not an employee
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 28 U.S.C. 1332
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Diversity jurisdiction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Feb 24, 2026DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. The Hain Celestial Group lost.
- Nov 4, 2025ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit: reversed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Texas Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
9 other argued cases since 1946 on miscellaneous judicial power, especially diversity jurisdiction, newest first.
- Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon137 S. Ct. 1504May 22, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 1504Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Americold Logistics, LLC, v. Conagra Foods, Inc.577 U.S. 378Mar 7, 2016 · 577 U.S. 378Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- The Hertz Corporation v. Melinda Friend et al.559 U.S. 77Feb 23, 2010 · 559 U.S. 77Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Franconia Associates, et al. v. United States536 U.S. 129Jun 10, 2002 · 536 U.S. 129Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- National City Bank of New York v. Republic of China et al.348 U.S. 356Mar 7, 1955 · 348 U.S. 356Judicial power4–36–3 band
- Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Elbert348 U.S. 48Dec 6, 1954 · 348 U.S. 48Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Madruga v. Superior Court of California, in and for the County of San Diego346 U.S. 556Jan 18, 1954 · 346 U.S. 556Judicial power7–27–2 band
- National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., Inc.337 U.S. 582Jun 20, 1949 · 337 U.S. 582Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Cope v. Anderson, Receiver331 U.S. 461Jun 2, 1947 · 331 U.S. 461Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.