Federal Appeals Court Revives Over 500 Lawsuits Linking Prenatal Tylenol Use to Autism, ADHD
The appeals court’s ruling hinged on whether the plaintiffs’ scientific evidence was sufficiently credible and reliable.
Last year, I reported that the FDA would issue notifications to doctors regarding the use of the pain reliever acetaminophen during pregnancy out of concern for possible connections to autism and adverse impacts on neurodevelopment.
Subsequently, there were social media posts of pregnant women taking Tylenol (acetaminophen) in protest of this move by the Trump administration, especially the head of Health and Human Services, Sec. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Now, a federal appeals court has reinstated more than 500 lawsuits alleging that prenatal use of Tylenol is linked to autism and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said a district court judge improperly excluded expert testimony from three doctors offered by parents and guardians who tied Tylenol use during pregnancy to autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children.
There is no firm scientific evidence of such a link. The issue drew greater attention after President Donald Trump and top U.S. health officials in September suggested a link to autism.
In a 64-page decision for a three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi said the testimony from the three doctors, including the dean of Harvard University’s School of Public Health, reflected methodologies used by other scientists, and “constitute acceptable interpretations of scientific evidence where scientists may, and in fact do, disagree.”
Calabresi stressed that the appeals court was not deciding whether using acetaminophen causes autism or ADHD, or whether elected officials should do more to protect public health.
A federal appeals court revived more than 500 lawsuits that allege Tylenol and generic acetaminophen can cause ADHD or autism if taken during pregnancy https://t.co/hjXRgNL3KX
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) July 13, 2026
The appeals court’s ruling hinged on whether the plaintiffs’ scientific evidence was sufficiently credible and reliable.
The primary expert witness for the plaintiffs was Andrea Baccarelli, the dean of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who submitted a report claiming that “substantial evidence” supported a causal link between use of acetaminophen during pregnancy and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism and A.D.H.D. in children, especially when taken frequently at high doses.
In December 2024, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote sided with lawyers for the defendants and ruled that Dr. Baccarelli had “cherry-picked and misrepresented study results” in his testimony and was therefore “unreliable.”
During the November 2025 hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Judge Gerard Lynch argued that the scientific information presented was valid, even if it was under dispute. “Reasonable scientists do appear to disagree,” he said.
Ashley Keller, a lawyer for the main law firm representing the plaintiffs, Keller Postman, said that Monday’s ruling represented “vindication for the scientific evidence our clients have presented from the outset.” He added, “We look forward to presenting that evidence to a jury.”
Private Lawsuits Linking Tylenol To Autism Revived | NewsRadio 840 WHAS https://t.co/Zc7JfvLpUS pic.twitter.com/jBma8uJhbd
— News Radio 840 WHAS (@840WHAS) July 14, 2026
The defendants in this case include many well-known retailers.
Kenvue agreed to be acquired by Kleenex tissue maker Kimberly-Clark for more than $40 billion last November.
In a statement to CNBC, Kenvue said, “We stand behind the safety of our product and will continue to defend these cases.”
Many retailers and pharmacy operators including CVS, Kroger, Target, Walgreens and Walmart were also named as defendants.
Shares of Kenvue traded down 20 cents at $19.28 in morning trading.
Given the conflicting expert interpretations, shifting regulatory priorities, and the court’s decision to let a jury weigh disputed science, the ultimate outcome is uncertain.
When scientifically derived evidence becomes entangled with legal strategy, public perception, and political framing, all bets are off.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
What would make this a very entertaining case is Tylenol presenting data that not a single “pregnant people” with a p***s that took Tylenol resulted in a baby being born with autism or ADHD
The “trans” lobby agrees that there’s no such thing as a pregnant person with a penis. “Pregnant people” — regardless of their gender — all have uteruses. People with penises, again regardless of whether they are men, women, or any of the many other available choices, can’t get pregnant.
The Havard/Chan school of public health is also the same medical school that published the claims that 600,000 had occurred in only 6 months of 2025 with the USAID cuts.
I would not trust anything with a taint of politics coming out of the harvard school of public health. They dont have a good track record of honesty.
Exactly. That school has blotted its escutcheon and burned its credibility.
The lancet study projecting 10m-14m deaths by the end of 2030 due to cuts in USAID is another example of junk advocacy science. The decibel level of complaints and studies projecting doom is directly proportional to the amount of grift going to the advocates of those programs.
Going after the retailer is a step too far. The maker is responsible for adequate warning labels and the consumer is responsible for responsible use. I could maybe see a case by case individual claim based on a Pharmacist employee of a retailer giving individual advice to a particular consumer.
I would be interested to know the truth about this, but I doubt that will happen.
I do wonder if today’s jury pool members are capable of distinguishing between correlation and causation.
And I wonder the same about those of the legal community… especially judges. Most in the legal profession and in politics as a career are there because the course of study there is almost totally free of any math and/or science. Social science and political science are not science.
It’s the deep pocket effect.
Justice was undone.
There is no firm scientific evidence of such a link…
In a 64-page decision for a three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi said the testimony from the three doctors, including the dean of Harvard University’s School of Public Health, reflected methodologies used by other scientists, and “constitute acceptable interpretations of scientific evidence where scientists may, and in fact do, disagree.”
The WSJ writer means “proof,” but writes “evidence” because he/she (or it) doesn’t understand the difference between the two. The court clearly states that there is, in fact, “scientific evidence.” The writer does not understand the scientific method either.
My bad. I neglected to include journalism in my above post.