Discussed indirectly about a week ago[1].
Two notes:
1. The statue that enables these kinds of reviews has a weak evidentiary standard (specifically, preponderance). In other words: it would have been unusual for a judge to deny the request unless it was completely specious.
2. There's no particular indication, either in terms of policy or new research, that the EPA's recognized safe levels for water fluoridation are actually unsafe. From a strategic perspective, it's simpler for the courts to accept a (de facto) weaker than preponderant standard and kick the relitigation of water fluoridation to the EPA, rather than deal with an inevitable avalanche of lawsuits claiming that the truth is being suppressed. It's better (and cheaper) to just do the research again (for the Nth time).