The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Washington) unanimously reversed the lower court decision in Food & Water Watch v. EPA, the case that had held that water fluoridation posed a potential health risk that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had failed to adequately assess.  The Ninth Circuit opinion is not a ruling on the merits of the issue of water fluoridation safety, but rests on the procedural ground that the lower court judge improperly interfered with the case presentation by the parties by admitting and relying on evidence that the parties themselves had deemed should not be considered and by insisting on holding a second trial when the parties had asked for a ruling based on the first trial.  The Ninth Circuit held that the lower court judge had abused his judicial discretion by impermissibly inserting himself into developing a factual record in the case that was not presented by the parties to the court.  The court vacated the lower court decision and remanded the case to the lower court to consider the narrower evidentiary record that the parties had presented.  In addition, the Ninth Circuit also ordered the lower court to consider whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue in the first instance based on the facts proffered by the EPA with respect to the standing issue.  While a procedural victory for water fluoridation, the case does not decide the merits of the issue and may well lead to more years of litigation in the lower court.  You can read the Ninth Circuit court opinion here: Ninth Circuit Court Opinion in Water Fluoridation Case.