© 2025 American Dental Association l 97
Fluoridation Facts
In 2016, WHO officials wrote:
The use of fluoride is a major breakthrough in public health. Controlled addition of fluoride to
drinking water supplies in communities where fluoride concentration is below optimal levels
to have a cariostatic effect began in the 1940s and since then, extensive research has
confirmed the successful reduction in dental caries in many countries.7
Many organizations, such as the NDA, the AAP, the AMA, the APHA, and the
WHO also have policies that support community water fluoridation.
61. Has the legality of water fluoridation been upheld by the courts?
Answer
Yes. Fluoridation has been thoroughly tested in the United States court system and found to be a
proper means of furthering public health and welfare. No court of last resort has ever determined
fluoridation to be unlawful. Moreover, fluoridation clearly has been held not to be an unconstitutional
invasion of religious freedom or other individual rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth, or Fourteenth
Amendments to the US Constitution. And while cases decided primarily on procedural grounds have
been won and lost by both pro- and anti-fluoridation interests, to the ADA’s knowledge, no final
ruling in any of those cases has terminated fluoridation for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Fact
Despite attempts to prevent community water fluoridation through court challenges and ballot
initiatives, it has received consistent approval in the courts as a proper means of advancing public
health and welfare. In addition, federal guidelines reinforce longstanding government support for
community water fluoridation at safe and effective levels.432
The legality of fluoridation in the United States has been thoroughly tested in our court systems.
Fluoridation is viewed by the courts as a proper means of furthering public health and welfare.433
No court of last resort has ever determined fluoridation to be unlawful. The highest courts of more than
a dozen states have confirmed the constitutionality of fluoridation.434 In 1984, the Illinois Supreme Court
upheld the constitutionality of the state’s mandatory fluoridation law, resolving 16 years of court action
at a variety of judicial levels.435 Moreover, the US Supreme Court has denied review of fluoridation cases
more than 13 times, citing that no substantial federal or constitutional questions were involved.434
Fluoridation is viewed by the courts as a proper means of furthering public health
and welfare. No court of last resort has ever determined fluoridation to be unlawful.
It has been the position of the American courts that a significant government interest in the health
and welfare of the public generally overrides individual objections to public health regulation.434
Consequently, the courts have rejected the contention that fluoridation ordinances are a deprivation
of religious or individual freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.434,436 In reviewing the legal
Fluoridation Facts
In 2016, WHO officials wrote:
The use of fluoride is a major breakthrough in public health. Controlled addition of fluoride to
drinking water supplies in communities where fluoride concentration is below optimal levels
to have a cariostatic effect began in the 1940s and since then, extensive research has
confirmed the successful reduction in dental caries in many countries.7
Many organizations, such as the NDA, the AAP, the AMA, the APHA, and the
WHO also have policies that support community water fluoridation.
61. Has the legality of water fluoridation been upheld by the courts?
Answer
Yes. Fluoridation has been thoroughly tested in the United States court system and found to be a
proper means of furthering public health and welfare. No court of last resort has ever determined
fluoridation to be unlawful. Moreover, fluoridation clearly has been held not to be an unconstitutional
invasion of religious freedom or other individual rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth, or Fourteenth
Amendments to the US Constitution. And while cases decided primarily on procedural grounds have
been won and lost by both pro- and anti-fluoridation interests, to the ADA’s knowledge, no final
ruling in any of those cases has terminated fluoridation for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Fact
Despite attempts to prevent community water fluoridation through court challenges and ballot
initiatives, it has received consistent approval in the courts as a proper means of advancing public
health and welfare. In addition, federal guidelines reinforce longstanding government support for
community water fluoridation at safe and effective levels.432
The legality of fluoridation in the United States has been thoroughly tested in our court systems.
Fluoridation is viewed by the courts as a proper means of furthering public health and welfare.433
No court of last resort has ever determined fluoridation to be unlawful. The highest courts of more than
a dozen states have confirmed the constitutionality of fluoridation.434 In 1984, the Illinois Supreme Court
upheld the constitutionality of the state’s mandatory fluoridation law, resolving 16 years of court action
at a variety of judicial levels.435 Moreover, the US Supreme Court has denied review of fluoridation cases
more than 13 times, citing that no substantial federal or constitutional questions were involved.434
Fluoridation is viewed by the courts as a proper means of furthering public health
and welfare. No court of last resort has ever determined fluoridation to be unlawful.
It has been the position of the American courts that a significant government interest in the health
and welfare of the public generally overrides individual objections to public health regulation.434
Consequently, the courts have rejected the contention that fluoridation ordinances are a deprivation
of religious or individual freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.434,436 In reviewing the legal
