The justices also denied review in the underlying challenge to the FDA's 2000 approval of mifepristone — meaning the drug will remain available going forward.
The 5th Circuit gives SCOTUS so much cover though. They float insane trial balloons and SCOTUS can reject most of them, giving the appearance of liberal 'wins' to the average citizen, all while substantially moving the law in a conservative direction.
These mifepristone cases are still over a preliminary injunction, right? Meaning that even if FDA/Danco prevail here, they still have to go through a trial on the merits before Kacsmaryk?
Yes, and, but. Most cases that come up to the Supreme Court in this posture are all but definitively resolved. Sure, in some instances, they are sent back for some application of a new rule. But, particularly here given the stay, if they took the case, they want to resolve the essence of the issue.
Since the 2000 FDA approval is for all intents and purposes locked in, does that foreclose any reliance on the Comstock Act? (Asking for a friend :-).)
Can someone explain how the plaintiffs in the case have standing, since they’ve never had to care for a botched mifepristone abortion? I remember reading that the plaintiffs would also be irreparably harmed because they wouldn’t have the joy of caring for pregnant women and delivering babies. That stance is just creepy and weird. Given that mifepristone is also used to help resolve miscarriages, they want to deny women essential care.
This case had the stay go to SCOTUS before the Fifth Circuit arguments on the preliminary injunction arguments, and there is the ridiculous standing argument. (Not sure which weirdness you are referring to, but, I think my answer is yes?)
I remember one where the 5th circuit somehow tried to retake jurisdiction after petitions were filed with SCOTUS, but it sounds like that wasn't this case.
Oh, no! That was the Missouri v. Biden, the social media influence case. And that was a ruling out of Louisiana! But, yes, the Fifth Circuit did that. (They also kind of did something like that, but a little less egregious, in the Galveston VRA case that SCOTUS acted on this week.)
Ah, yes! I think I mixed them up because both involved insane district court orders that were narrowed to still-problematic-but-less-transparently-absurd versions at the appelate level.
Is there any work Danco and the FDA can do now, in the background, to ensure telehealth/pills by mail and later gestational limits are re-approved as quickly as possible jn the event the 2016 and 2020 approvals are rolled back by the Court?
In my dream of dreams SCOTUS tells the 5th Circuit to stop finding standing based on vibes.
The 5th Circuit gives SCOTUS so much cover though. They float insane trial balloons and SCOTUS can reject most of them, giving the appearance of liberal 'wins' to the average citizen, all while substantially moving the law in a conservative direction.
Bingo!
And suggest to Judge James Ho that he should seek another line of work.
typo: approvaled
Fixed!
I thought maybe it was some special legal term 🤣
isn't this going to boil down to how much deference to give administrative decisions by an agency?
That could bode ill given these Extremes.
These mifepristone cases are still over a preliminary injunction, right? Meaning that even if FDA/Danco prevail here, they still have to go through a trial on the merits before Kacsmaryk?
Yes, and, but. Most cases that come up to the Supreme Court in this posture are all but definitively resolved. Sure, in some instances, they are sent back for some application of a new rule. But, particularly here given the stay, if they took the case, they want to resolve the essence of the issue.
Since the 2000 FDA approval is for all intents and purposes locked in, does that foreclose any reliance on the Comstock Act? (Asking for a friend :-).)
Can someone explain how the plaintiffs in the case have standing, since they’ve never had to care for a botched mifepristone abortion? I remember reading that the plaintiffs would also be irreparably harmed because they wouldn’t have the joy of caring for pregnant women and delivering babies. That stance is just creepy and weird. Given that mifepristone is also used to help resolve miscarriages, they want to deny women essential care.
This is the case that had that weird jurisdictional dance at the 5th circuit, right? Or was that a different absurd Kacsmaryk opinion?
This case had the stay go to SCOTUS before the Fifth Circuit arguments on the preliminary injunction arguments, and there is the ridiculous standing argument. (Not sure which weirdness you are referring to, but, I think my answer is yes?)
I remember one where the 5th circuit somehow tried to retake jurisdiction after petitions were filed with SCOTUS, but it sounds like that wasn't this case.
Oh, no! That was the Missouri v. Biden, the social media influence case. And that was a ruling out of Louisiana! But, yes, the Fifth Circuit did that. (They also kind of did something like that, but a little less egregious, in the Galveston VRA case that SCOTUS acted on this week.)
Ah, yes! I think I mixed them up because both involved insane district court orders that were narrowed to still-problematic-but-less-transparently-absurd versions at the appelate level.
Is there any work Danco and the FDA can do now, in the background, to ensure telehealth/pills by mail and later gestational limits are re-approved as quickly as possible jn the event the 2016 and 2020 approvals are rolled back by the Court?
I can't imagine this ending horrifically.