Baby Formula Lawsuit Families Score Back-to-Back Court Victories Ahead of August Trial
The families suing Abbott and Mead Johnson over necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) linked to cow’s milk-based infant formula have notched two significant wins in quick succession. A federal appeals court blocked an attempt to pull NEC cases into a more favorable court, and a federal judge refused to let Mead Johnson use a Roundup Supreme Court decision to kill a key claim days before trial. Together, the rulings push back against a pattern that has defined this litigation: formula makers fighting on procedural and technical grounds to avoid answering for the harm at the center of these cases.
The First Win: Families Keep Their Cases in State Court
When families sue a large corporation, one of the first battles is often not about the facts of the case itself. Instead, it is about where the case will take place. This fight over location is called forum selection, and it is more important than many people realize.
Families who file injury lawsuits often prefer state courts, which tend to be closer to home, familiar with local juries and more open to consumer claims. Corporations usually prefer federal court. These courts tend to have stricter rules, cases can take longer and companies believe that federal juries are less likely to give large verdicts against them. This is why moving a case to federal court is a common strategy for corporations.
In the baby formula NEC cases, Abbott and Mead Johnson did just that. They convinced a lower court to move these cases from state court to federal court, but the reason they gave was unusual. The companies argued that because the families had not pursued one of the local defendants strongly enough, they had given up their right to remain in state court. In other words, if you did not fight hard enough against this one defendant, you lose your right to choose your courthouse.
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected that argument outright. The court reaffirmed a foundational legal principle: Plaintiffs are the masters of their own cases. Families have the right to choose the forum they believe best serves their interests, and a corporation cannot strip that right away by second-guessing how a family’s lawyers chose to litigate. The court also noted that if the rules governing federal jurisdiction need to change, that’s Congress’s job, not a favor courts should grant to powerful corporations. The cases are now headed back to the state courts where the families originally filed.
Because this is a published precedent, it binds courts in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, and could influence how similar disputes are resolved in other circuits.
The Second Win: Judge Blocks a Last-Minute Legal Gambit
With the first federal bellwether trial in Inman v. Mead Johnson set for August 12, the baby formula manufacturer filed a last-minute motion arguing that a key claim in the case should be thrown out entirely.
The plaintiff, Alexis Inman, alleges that Mead Johnson’s Enfamil Premature Formula was defectively designed. Specifically, she claims the company could have used a safer carbohydrate in the formula, and that its failure to do so contributed to her premature infant developing NEC.
To kill that claim before trial, Mead Johnson turned to Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, a 2026 Supreme Court decision that arose from the Roundup weed killer litigation. In Durnell, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law preempted state law failure-to-warn claims against Roundup’s manufacturer, because the EPA had approved Roundup’s label without a cancer warning. Mead Johnson argued the same principle should apply here, with the Infant Formula Act serving the same preemptive role.
On August 5, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer denied the motion.
The court found the comparison didn’t hold up for two reasons. First, the Roundup decision was grounded in a federal statute that contains an express preemption clause. The Infant Formula Act has no such clause. Second, the Supreme Court in Durnell struck down a failure-to-warn claim in a context where federal law required the manufacturer to use a specific label. Mead Johnson was trying to extend that logic to a design-defect claim, which is a different legal theory, in a context where the FDA doesn’t pre-approve infant formula designs before they reach the market. Unlike prescription drugs, formula makers only have to notify the FDA; they don’t need its approval. The court also flagged that Mead Johnson raised this argument on the eve of trial and had floated a nearly identical argument in an earlier case without ever following through on it.
The motion was denied without prejudice, meaning Mead Johnson could revisit the argument later. But the design-defect claim is going to the jury on August 12.
Why Both Rulings Matter
The forum-selection and preemption rulings are separate legal questions, but they’re part of the same broader pattern: Formula makers using procedural and technical arguments to delay, redirect or eliminate claims before families ever get to present their cases to a jury.
The Seventh Circuit ruling preserves something important for the thousands of families still pursuing claims in state court. The bulk of the wins in this litigation have come at the state level: $70 million in Cook County in April 2026, $495 million in Missouri in July 2024 and $60 million in Illinois in March 2024. Keeping cases in state court could help maintain that track record.
The preemption ruling matters because it draws a line on how far Durnell can reach. Corporations across multiple litigations have been looking for ways to apply that decision broadly, and Judge Pallmeyer’s order makes clear it doesn’t automatically extend from failure-to-warn claims to design-defect claims, or from statutes with express preemption clauses to those without them.
What’s Next
There are currently 825 cases pending in the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL 3026) before Judge Pallmeyer in the Northern District of Illinois, and the litigation is approaching a pivotal stretch.
The federal MDL has been a harder road for families than state court. Judge Pallmeyer granted summary judgment to Abbott in three of the first-wave bellwether cases, meaning those cases never made it to a jury. The upcoming Inman trial on August 12 represents the first federal case involving Mead Johnson’s Enfamil and the beginning of a second wave of bellwether cases. A plaintiff win in federal court would significantly increase pressure on both companies to negotiate a broader settlement.
Not every recent development has gone in favor of families facing NEC. In a setback, the Seventh Circuit agreed with Judge Pallmeyer’s earlier dismissal of a wrongful death claim brought by Ericka Mar, whose premature baby died after being fed Abbott’s formula in the NICU. The court found that because the hospital had no practical alternative to formula feeding at the time, the manufacturers couldn’t be held liable on that theory. Mar’s wrongful death claim will not move forward.
The litigation is complex and outcomes have been mixed and unpredictable. But these two rulings, going into the August 12 trial, mean families will have their full case heard in the courts they chose, with their claims intact.
If your premature infant was diagnosed with NEC after being fed cow’s milk-based formula in the NICU, you may have legal options. The NEC formula litigation is still active, and families continue to pursue accountability from Abbott and Mead Johnson.
