Beyond the Label: The Supreme Court Weighs In on What’s Natural

Xylee Alvarez

November 2025

Can “natural” really mean what consumers think it does? 

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments about The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Podlaski, which asks whether federal law, specifically the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), prevents consumers from suing food companies in state courts over allegedly misleading natural labels. 

Hain Celestial, the maker of products like Celestial Seasonings teas and Earth’s Best organic foods, argues that federal labeling rules should take priority and that allowing state lawsuits over “natural” wording creates confusion and inconsistency.

Podlaski, representing consumers, argues that companies should still be accountable under state laws when they market products as “natural” while including synthetic or processed ingredients. So, the question the case asks is whether a federal court’s final judgment should be set aside if the case did not have complete diversity when it was removed from state court, and can a plaintiff block diversity jurisdiction by updating the complaint after removal to include a valid claim against a non-diverse defendant? 

             Throughout the oral argument, what piqued my interest was the justices' extreme skepticism of both extremes. It seemed to me they weren’t fully convinced by Celestial's argument that federal law completely blocks state lawsuits. Justice Kagan’s tone especially caught my attention as she repeatedly pressed Celestial's lawyer on the fact that the FDA still hasn’t defined “natural”. Her questioning sounded frustrated. Justice Sotomayor chimed in with the same tone, emphasizing the fact that if the FDA hadn’t spoken, why shouldn’t states fill in those gaps? It’s refreshing to see pressure applied where pressure is needed. 

                After hearing the arguments, I feel that the court will rule in a 7-2  decision in favor of Palmquist. Most of the justices, across the ideological spectrum, didn’t seem convinced that federal law completely blocks a state claim. The justices seemed awfully concrete, and I think this case is gonna be a standing point for other companies to see that profiting off vague marketing while pretending federal law shields them from accountability isn’t gonna be so easy to get away with soon. 

 I think the majority will say that the consumers can bring lawsuits under the state law until the FDA finally defines what “natural” truly is.