AGG Files U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief for AAP in Mead Johnson Infant Formula Case

On August 7, 2026, AGG Healthcare attorneys Andrew Tsui and Kathryn Boswell Enlow filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”), the largest professional association of pediatricians in the United States. Six additional amici joined the brief: the March of Dimes; the Children’s Hospitals Neonatal Consortium (“CHNC”); the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (“NAPNP”); the Perinatal Research Society (“PRS”); the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (“NASPGHN”); and the Illinois Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The brief supports a petition for writ of certiorari filed by Mead Johnson & Company (“Mead Johnson”), represented by Covington & Burling, LLP, on appeal from the Appellate Court of Illinois for the Fifth District. The Supreme Court proceeding, Mead Johnson & Company, LLC v. Clarissa Greear, et al., arises from the consolidated Illinois litigation decided in Toles v. Mead Johnson & Co., 2025 IL App (5th) 231205.

Why Preterm Infant Formula and NEC Causation Are Before the Supreme Court

Illinois has become one of the most favored plaintiff venues for products liability litigation. The state’s expansive approach to personal jurisdiction, however, carries consequences beyond the parties before it, particularly where tort judgments may rest on contested science and implicate access to critical medical products nationwide. Preterm infant formula, a highly specialized component of neonatal medicine, has become embroiled in this litigation wave. The recent Illinois decision in Toles v. Mead Johnson & Co. found that preterm infant formula caused necrotizing enterocolitis (“NEC”) in preterm infants — a conclusion that has raised serious concerns about the stability of the nation’s formula supply and the medical community’s ability to implement clinically appropriate feeding regimens for premature neonates.

What Current Research Says About Preterm Infant Formula and NEC

AAP and amici maintain that the asserted causal connection between preterm infant formula and NEC lacks scientific and clinical support. The brief presents the most current peer-reviewed research on the multifactorial etiology of NEC, the protective role of human milk, and the methodological risks of confusing association with causation. As the nation’s leading professional organizations in pediatric care and neonatal research, AAP and amici sought to ensure the Court has access to the full scientific record, and that tort liability in this area rests on established evidence rather than speculation.

The brief explains that preterm infant formula fills a critical gap in neonatal medicine for nearly 380,000 premature infants born in the United States each year and is recognized by the AAP, the FDA, the CDC, and the NIH as part of the medical standard of care for premature infants. Drawing on the leading medical literature — including the 2024 NACHHD Working Group Report, an FDA/CDC/NIH Consensus Statement, and peer-reviewed clinical research — the brief demonstrates that the increased risk of NEC is associated with the absence of human milk’s protective properties, not the presence of formula.

What the Supreme Court Case Could Mean for Products Liability and Neonatal Care

Greear, the Supreme Court proceeding arising from the Toles litigation, presents a significant question at the intersection of products liability law and pediatric medicine. AGG was selected by AAP and its co-amici to present the medical community’s perspective alongside Covington & Burling’s petition, bringing the collective expertise of the nation’s foremost child health organizations directly before the Court. As products liability litigation with national public health implications continues to concentrate in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions, cases like Greear test whether courts will demand that causation findings align with the weight of scientific evidence, particularly where adverse judgments may jeopardize access to life-saving therapies for the country’s most vulnerable patients.

If you have any questions about the matter or about these issues in general, please contact Andrew or Kathryn.