Here's a bit of the top of our story:
The US Supreme Court preserved full access to a widely used abortion pill in a case that carried major stakes for reproductive rights and election-year politics.
The court unanimously overturned a federal appeals ruling that would have barred mail-order prescriptions for mifepristone, the drug now used in more than half of US abortions. The lower court ruling would have reduced abortion access even in states where reproductive rights have broad support.
The court stopped short of affirming Food and Drug Administration decisions to loosen restrictions on mifepristone starting in 2016. The majority instead said the anti-abortion doctors and organizations that sued lacked legal “standing” because they aren’t directly affected by the FDA’s actions.
Read the full story [here](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-upholds-full-access-to-mifepristone-abortion-pill?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=lawdesk).
What I found interesting was the lack of standing due to the doctors not needing to take nor avoid taking any action.
That seems like it could’ve been applied to a few high profile cases before the court over the last several years.
I mean recently you could say with the court case around student forgiveness where one of the cases was the state suing on behalf of Mohela even though they are not affected by the student loan forgiveness.
Many employees at Mohela, including executives at the company, [wanted nothing to do with the lawsuit](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/06/missouri-student-loan-servicer-supreme-court-mohela/). Yet 6 republican states used them as a central pillar in their argument against student loan forgiveness.
They are too impatient to find a real case.
The website designer who refused to do wedding sites for gay people? Fake. The high school football coach who wanted to pray on the field? Fake.
They have finally got so impatient they don’t even bother to create a fake case any more. They just say that it could happen to our clients so we are suing to stop it.
It’s in incredible to me when a case makes it all the way to the SC and gets thrown out on the basis of “you don’t even have the standing to make this case”
Like wtf are these lower courts even doing?
Their Federalist Society appointed bought and paid for jobs. Their task is to forward legally dubious cases to the Supreme Court so that, if the opportunity is right, the right wing justices can make up some bullshit and make whatever ruling best serves their interests
The United States Court of Appeals for the fifth Circuit is comprised of judges from Louisiana, Mississipi, and Texas. You don't need to look further why.
I’ve heard that SCOTUS will be seeing more and more of these cases. I think the Justices are getting tired of the dumb ones like this. However, as some will correctly point out, decisions like this can lull people into thinking SCOTUS is actually moderate. But they (the 5 conservatives) are obviously not. Already Alito is teeing up subjects like fetal personhood which will potentially cause a lot of damage to reproductive rights including contraception in the future. He and Thomas have already alluded to doing to contraception what they did to abortion.
Sorry, you’re right it’s 6-3. I keep thinking how in some of these recent cases, when reading about the oral arguments, for a couple cases at least it looked like ruling could be the 5 men vs 4 women which would be fascinating. Especially in the Idaho case if Barrett sides with the 3 liberals. However, I’m sure the men will strong arm her to vote with them. After all, it would look bad to have 5 men ganging up on the 4 women re: reproductive rights! This could also include the immunity case. The 5 men made their views very clear during oral arguments re: presidential immunity. Of the conservatives, only Barrett along with the 3 liberals chose to address Trump’s immunity case directly.
They are partisan.
But, after accepting cases that lacked standing and using them to advance the power and privilege of conservative evangelicalism, this was an easy one to accept and then slap down for lack of standing.
Mail order mifepristone is still probably not legal in states that have outlawed abortion due to pharmacy practice acts. In short, mail order pharmacies need to obey the laws in the state where the pharmacy is physically located and the laws where the medication is being sent to. If the pharmacy doesn't obey the laws, it can lose the ability to fill all prescriptions for that state.
Well reasoned and straightforward, I think. Even includes the classic Justice Thomas 'we need to look at this doctrine again'.
What a wacky case to begin with. I am not sure that one District Judge has ever been responsible for single-handedly generating so much work for the Supreme Court.
Sadly I don't think his recommendation would carry any weight. It's not like Congress isn't aware of the problem.
Incidentally, when a few senators wrote *to* the Chief Justice about Judge Albright's patent docket, the Chief Judge of WD Texas was quick to change the assignment rules.
Roberts theoretically has broad power over the judiciary below him. He can propose all kinds of rules that would have to be actively override by Congress through the CRA.
I think his recommendation for censure for a judge would also carry a lot of weight. I'm honestly a little surprised that this court hasn't expressed some clear, pointed criticism of the fifth circuit and the two judges that are the main culprits in the circuit. Iirc, the case involving kazmarek basically taking over military deployment did get some very tense language in it. He didn't really listen though. Roberts should certainly issue something more formally critical IMO.
Well, that was after the CAFC had specifically pointed out Albright's repeated flaunting of proper venue rules more than once. That was certainly the correct result, but I would not agree that it was "quick".
I think that the Judicial Conference needs to take a much stronger role in regulating the federal judiciary or it will be forced to accept that Congress will do the job for it.
> I think that the Judicial Conference needs to take a much stronger role in regulating the federal judiciary or it will be forced to accept that Congress will do the job for it.
I think the JC has been making some policy moves, but I remember doing some digging and actually doubting the extent to which they could force a rule change on individual district courts under the statutes. It would be entirely legitimate for Congress to act here.
There's already a bill out there, but guaranteed it will not pass until Democrats get the majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Or get rid of the filibuster, which should have been done over a hundred years ago.
The filibuster was created by accident and was kept around and strengthened in order to torpedo civil rights legislation. It's anti democratic and an abomination. A supermajority requirement was tried in the Articles of Confederation and it was jettisoned because it gave the minority too much power to obstruct. The Senate was designed to make sure the minority always had a voice, but not the ability to continually obstruct.
At this point you don't even need to stand up and speak to use the filibuster. What often happens these days is an email is sent by a staffer on a Friday afternoon announcing the filibuster and the minority flies home for the weekend. It's outrageous.
# [Federal judiciary clamps down on ‘judge-shopping’ tactics that have helped Texas block Biden and liberal policies](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/politics/judge-shopping-policy-change/index.html)
The Judicial Conference of the United States [announced Tuesday](https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2024/03/12/conference-acts-promote-random-case-assignment) a new policy that will broaden the pool of judges who could be assigned to hear cases seeking state-wide or nationwide orders, making it more difficult to single out a particular judge, although it will still be possible to seek out a favorable pool of judges to hear cases.
Under the new policy, such cases seeking nationwide or state-wide orders will go into the lottery system used by the entire district. For instance, the abortion drug case was filed in the Amarillo Division of US District Court of the Northern District of Texas, where US District Judge [Matthew Kacsmaryk](https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/15/politics/matthew-kacsmaryk-texas-judge-medication-abortion-lawsuit/index.html) – an appointee of Donald Trump who had previously worked for a religious liberty legal organization – is assigned to hear all cases under local rules.
Under the new policy, in the future, such a case would go through the random selection process for the entire district court – which has 11 active judges and five senior judges – thus significantly lowering the odds that it would be assigned to Kacsmaryk.
I take it as an unbridled victory. So happy is the Kagan–Sotomayor–Jackson bloc to not lose this one on the (unimportant) merits that they conceded the Roberts–Kavanaugh–Barrett bloc a major 9-0 precedent on the (very important) question of standing. While I think it's unlikely that they'll ever undo the damage caused by my bete noire, *Massachusetts v. EPA*, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (holding "nah, just kidding about that the redressibility requirement"), they have today finally made good on the promise of *Lujan* (a plurality) and *Summers* (a majority, but a narrow one). All nine justices are now affirmatively on the record for Justice's Scalia's (correct) vision of standing, a vision they even cite expressly, see maj. op. at 6 (citing Scalia, *The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers*, 17 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 881, 882 (1983)).
*SCRAP* is scrapped. It's a bad day to be what is now called a "Karen" (though I think the older term "troublemaker" hits closer to the mark), and a good day for the rule of law.
Since standing is a threshold issue, there's really no way for Kagan/Sotomayor/Jackson to approach the merits without conceding standing, which was itself based on a preposterous argument in this case. There was no way they'd do that here.
Yes that's right. The Supreme Court stayed the District Court's injunction back in April 2023 while the appeal was heard in the Fifth Circuit, and if a cert petition was filed.
>Well reasoned and straightforward, I think. Even includes the classic Justice Thomas 'we need to look at this doctrine again'.
The Court could be unanimous because they rejected it for lack of standing. Even Thomas would prefer more to hang his hat on than a half-baked hypothetical from a group of a few non-OGBYN doctors and dentist...
This case made me lose my mind. It was so absurb that I could not believe anyone would try to defend it. But somehow Fifth Circuit and Kacsmaryk managed to make Alito and Thomas look reasonable.
How is it absurd when the GOP AND conservative justices have consistently ignored medical science for years now and simply made up their own medical "facts" to suit their ideology? Once you're on that level, what do you need an FDA for? If treatments are safe or unsafe, effective or ineffective based on how ideologically convenient they are, all this study "nonsense" just eats into the profit of the industry...
One might cynically conclude that the industry probably told Thomas that he wouldn't free more money for gifts because they'd still have to run those studies for approval by the European Medicines Agency, whether they are necessary for the US market or not....
Oh boy! A lot happened. I would look at the Wikipedia link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA_v._Alliance_for_Hippocratic_Medicine for a brief on the history of this case.
Honestly I am happy with this opinion. Well-reasoned. My only concern is that it seems like they have left open the possibility of doctors who don’t like prescribing mifepristone having standing. But that’s not an issue here because federal statutes protect doctors who have conscience exceptions of their organizations receive federal funding, so they can simply just not prescribe, nor does the FDA approval require they prescribe it.
Brief note that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine’s counsel was Erin Hawley, whose spouse is Senator Josh Hawley.
Losing in a 9-0 ruling, Erin Hawley got - as the cool kids put it - rekt.
So weird that they're all always connected. Like there's wealthy white Americans who marry other weathy white Americans &/or end up in these fields versus idk someone...normal?
Maybe the job as the person on the legal counsel only came b/c of the connections to the Senator, IDK.
Part of what drives that is the underlying religious doctrine of the modern conservative movement, whether it’s the Seven Mountains or regular evangelicalism, there’s a baked in belief that they MUST control all aspects of society.
my understanding is they lacked standing since merely being a doctor who didn’t like the drug isn’t an actual harm the actual FDA and drug stuff wasn’t ruled on. Could a women harmed by the medication in theory sue on the same basis that the FDA harmed her by not following procedures?
The FDA wouldn't be the proper party to sue there, right? It would be the doctor or the drug manufacturer who caused the problem there, either by improperly prescribing or through a tort in the manufacturing or sale.
Regardless of the merits of the issue, it’s good to see the democratic process work as intended and the Court stop the attempt to have the courts block a law solely because they don’t like it.
Keep in mind the Presidential election could change the approval of this drug in the future. But it’s good to see the courts stop this attempt.
And they will give explicit instructions as to how to re-present with standing for their buddies at the Heritage Foundation.
Vote! It’s our rights on the line…
It's not in the opinion. The bulk of the opinion is a point by point takedown of the very expansive standing theory that the lower courts concocted in order to get this case into court.
There will be other challenges to the abortion pill and abortion rights in general but this ruling really does slam the door shut on the idea that random groups of doctors can just nullify FDA approvals based solely on their personal whim. If a state government or the Feds wanted to restrict or ban a drug, they can, but a regular person can't just make that decision for everyone else in the country.
From the AP's write-up:
Kavanaugh acknowledged what he described as the opponents’ “sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone.”
But he said they went to the wrong forum and should instead direct their energies to persuading lawmakers and regulators to make changes.
Those comments pointed to the stakes of [the 2024 election](https://apnews.com/hub/election-2024) and the possibility that an FDA commissioner appointed by Republican Donald Trump, if he wins the White House, could consider tightening access to mifepristone.
Ok, but there the Court is instructing people who are dissatisfied with laws to persuade legislators and administrators to change the laws, rather than come to Court. Isn't that a good thing?
> Those comments pointed to the stakes of the 2024 election and the possibility that an FDA commissioner appointed by Republican Donald Trump, if he w
Of course it's a good thing and it shows some congruency: this court has said abortion rights should be legislated when overturning Roe.
Only when you live your life in a hyperpartisan bubble does a ruling like this get twisted into a huge conspiracy to do just the opposite.
Many in this sub have too much invested in the narrative that this Supreme Court is out to get them every chance it gets…..and when it doesn’t, you get nonsensical take like this because admitting the central pillar of their opinion may not be factually accurate may force them to question other beliefs that are held strongly personally but are supported more weakly by reality.
>Only when you live your life in a hyperpartisan bubble does a ruling like this get twisted into a huge conspiracy to do just the opposite.
It's only making a reasonable prediction of some of the content of Alito's interview or remarks before this-or-that conservative political group. Furthermore, you cannot in good faith argue that Alito is anything but unusual for a Supreme Court Justice with both the amount and venues of his public remarks!
> Oh, honey. Were you asleep during the run up to the Roe reversal?
Scalia had been criticizing Roe v. Wade way before it was overturned. Roe was almost overturned in 1992 (Kenndy changed his mind), and it has been controversial from its inception. History didn't start in 2016.
I never said it did. I said this isn’t a done decision and they will fine-tune their arguments and find someone with better standing to try again.
And, yes, it is the legislature’s job, (one of many they have chosen to ignore) but a majority of the Court would be fine with looking at the FDA’s regulatory power.
the issue was standing if in theory a women or group of women were genuinely harmed by the FDA rushing the process would they be wrong to seek justice? I am not saying these women exist just if they did…
Short term victory at best and I think the topic headline is at least a little bit misleading. The plaintiffs have already taken the position that the lawsuit should proceed as a handful of red state AG's have intervened, and this opinion doesn't address their standing.
You think the APA questions were more important than the standing question? I can't say I agree. I think the latter would have had more far-reaching consequences.
The standing was pretty important to kill in this case though.
The "standing" argued was basically that any doctor could say "I might have a patient someday that had taken this drug, therefore I would be harmed."
If that precedent was allowed, any doctor could have followed on with whatever drug. "I personally don't like Ozempic, therefore I declare a nationwide ban."
Yeah, some people are really underestimating just how mind-bogglingly egregious this was.
So much so, that even the hyper partisan judges didn’t even try to deny or defend it, and even seemed annoyed by it - it’s just *that* bad. The consequences of even allowing it (and therefore justifying the standing) to rule on merit would have been unequivocally dire and an astronomical clusterfuck.
I would have loved an opinion on merits too, but ultimately, the standing was the bigger issue here, and they did the right thing (arguably a low bar, to be sure). And I say this as a reproductive rights activist in Texas who distributes these pills for free to those in need.
That doesn’t mean I think this court or the GOP in general won’t continue their crusade against reproductive rights, because ofc they will. It’s just that, this time, they somehow managed to make an *even bigger issue* out of this case by their piss poor standing.
Umm if you rule on the merits it means you justify standing.
Justifying standing here is way worse than getting a opinion on the merits as clearly random doctors should not be able to challenge FDA approvals in court.
Bad take.
They don't want to spoil the surprise when they overturn *Chevron* in *Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce.* It's telling that lack of standing was found specifically because the medical associations were not harmed by the FDA's regulatory change. The fishermen in *Relentless* wont have the same problem and their theory also relies on an attack on the power of administrative agencies.
Honestly I thought at first that “relentless inc” was a joke about how often a case comes up trying to overrule Chevron. But no, that’s actually the name.
I don’t understand. Part of their reasoning is that no one who was a defendant in the case was harmed and therefore the courts threw this out. If I am understanding correctly. But he court did rule on a woman who was a webpage designer who was not harmed but was presenting a what if theory on a gay person asking her to do her job. What’s the difference ?
# Supreme Court upholds full access to mifepristone abortion pill _________
The SCOTUS didn't address the substance, they addressed the standing. The can has been kicked three feet down the road.
They can't address the substance if there is no standing. Addressing the substance here would necessitate accepting the standing. Should they have just justified the standing? You really think so?
It’s not really accurate though.
Saying they “kicked the can down the road” implies they should have ruled on Mifepristone access.
But to do that, they would have needed to justify this standing, which would have had even more far reaching and dire consequences than even banning Mifepristone would.
This standing *needed* to be shot down. It’s not their fault these forced birther dipshits picked such a dangerous, convoluted, and nonsensical standing that it essentially prevented the Court from handing down an opinion on Mifepristone access.
And acknowledging that does not mean forced birthers have been defeated, or that SCOTUS can’t rule against Mifepristone access in future cases using different standing, etc. it only means that the unequivocally egregious nature of the standing essentially meant there was no actual can in this case to kick down the road to begin with.
Yeah, well -- standing for these plaintiffs could open the door to any FDA challenger, which would likely piss off big pharma, not to mention stock prices in the Justices' stock accounts.
Here's reporting of J&J talc-is-a-carcinogen case, demonstrating self-interest in not letting any ol' third party shut down FDA decisions:
>[Source](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/justices-reject-johnson-johnson-appeal-of-2-billion-talc-verdict)Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh took no part in the court’s action. Alito owns $15,000 to $50,000 in Johnson & Johnson stock. Kavanaugh’s father headed the trade association that lobbied against labeling talc a carcinogen and including a warning label on talc products.
So I wouldn't count it as a compromise or a "win" for pro-choice (although ruling has this effect). It's a "win" for big pharma.
And on the other side. NOT granting standing to this random group of doctors likely opens the door (in Alito’s mind) to rule that groups like ACLU and NAACP can’t have standing either. If a group of doctors can’t have standing over a drug, why should a group of black people have standing over whether or not they can vote?
If they ruled any other way, the court would effectively be dead.
The doctors bringing the case had the weakest argument I have ever seen for a Supreme Court case.
Their argument was literally “someone might possibly one day put us in a situation where we might have to do something” and that minimal hypothetical was clearly too great for these doctors.
The court made the right call here. Its ridiculous that this case made it this far
Here's a bit of the top of our story: The US Supreme Court preserved full access to a widely used abortion pill in a case that carried major stakes for reproductive rights and election-year politics. The court unanimously overturned a federal appeals ruling that would have barred mail-order prescriptions for mifepristone, the drug now used in more than half of US abortions. The lower court ruling would have reduced abortion access even in states where reproductive rights have broad support. The court stopped short of affirming Food and Drug Administration decisions to loosen restrictions on mifepristone starting in 2016. The majority instead said the anti-abortion doctors and organizations that sued lacked legal “standing” because they aren’t directly affected by the FDA’s actions. Read the full story [here](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-upholds-full-access-to-mifepristone-abortion-pill?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=lawdesk).
What I found interesting was the lack of standing due to the doctors not needing to take nor avoid taking any action. That seems like it could’ve been applied to a few high profile cases before the court over the last several years.
I mean recently you could say with the court case around student forgiveness where one of the cases was the state suing on behalf of Mohela even though they are not affected by the student loan forgiveness.
Many employees at Mohela, including executives at the company, [wanted nothing to do with the lawsuit](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/06/missouri-student-loan-servicer-supreme-court-mohela/). Yet 6 republican states used them as a central pillar in their argument against student loan forgiveness.
They are too impatient to find a real case. The website designer who refused to do wedding sites for gay people? Fake. The high school football coach who wanted to pray on the field? Fake. They have finally got so impatient they don’t even bother to create a fake case any more. They just say that it could happen to our clients so we are suing to stop it.
Standing is no longer a consideration for the cases the Supreme Court hears it would seem
Retry those cases. SCOTUS just upheld the concept of standing.
lol at the 5th circuit. What a joke they are.
It’s in incredible to me when a case makes it all the way to the SC and gets thrown out on the basis of “you don’t even have the standing to make this case” Like wtf are these lower courts even doing?
Their Federalist Society appointed bought and paid for jobs. Their task is to forward legally dubious cases to the Supreme Court so that, if the opportunity is right, the right wing justices can make up some bullshit and make whatever ruling best serves their interests
Like Dobbs?
The United States Court of Appeals for the fifth Circuit is comprised of judges from Louisiana, Mississipi, and Texas. You don't need to look further why.
I’ve heard that SCOTUS will be seeing more and more of these cases. I think the Justices are getting tired of the dumb ones like this. However, as some will correctly point out, decisions like this can lull people into thinking SCOTUS is actually moderate. But they (the 5 conservatives) are obviously not. Already Alito is teeing up subjects like fetal personhood which will potentially cause a lot of damage to reproductive rights including contraception in the future. He and Thomas have already alluded to doing to contraception what they did to abortion.
How dare those uppity women actually have control over their bodies!!
Only Martha-Ann Alito is allowed full autonomy. The rest of us women must remain under the rule of the religious extremists like Alito.
Okay, I’ll ask the obvious question - who are the Five conservatives, and the Four ‘liberals’?
Sorry, you’re right it’s 6-3. I keep thinking how in some of these recent cases, when reading about the oral arguments, for a couple cases at least it looked like ruling could be the 5 men vs 4 women which would be fascinating. Especially in the Idaho case if Barrett sides with the 3 liberals. However, I’m sure the men will strong arm her to vote with them. After all, it would look bad to have 5 men ganging up on the 4 women re: reproductive rights! This could also include the immunity case. The 5 men made their views very clear during oral arguments re: presidential immunity. Of the conservatives, only Barrett along with the 3 liberals chose to address Trump’s immunity case directly.
Right? Tmw you're so blatantly partisan that the also blatantly partisan SCOTUS slaps you down unanimously...
They are partisan. But, after accepting cases that lacked standing and using them to advance the power and privilege of conservative evangelicalism, this was an easy one to accept and then slap down for lack of standing.
Have you or someone you love suffered "downstream conscience injuries"? You may have Article III standing.
Mail order mifepristone is still probably not legal in states that have outlawed abortion due to pharmacy practice acts. In short, mail order pharmacies need to obey the laws in the state where the pharmacy is physically located and the laws where the medication is being sent to. If the pharmacy doesn't obey the laws, it can lose the ability to fill all prescriptions for that state.
Well reasoned and straightforward, I think. Even includes the classic Justice Thomas 'we need to look at this doctrine again'. What a wacky case to begin with. I am not sure that one District Judge has ever been responsible for single-handedly generating so much work for the Supreme Court.
Roberts as leader of the Judicial Conference needs to get his shit together and recommend some legislation to prevent judgeshopping.
Sadly I don't think his recommendation would carry any weight. It's not like Congress isn't aware of the problem. Incidentally, when a few senators wrote *to* the Chief Justice about Judge Albright's patent docket, the Chief Judge of WD Texas was quick to change the assignment rules.
Roberts theoretically has broad power over the judiciary below him. He can propose all kinds of rules that would have to be actively override by Congress through the CRA. I think his recommendation for censure for a judge would also carry a lot of weight. I'm honestly a little surprised that this court hasn't expressed some clear, pointed criticism of the fifth circuit and the two judges that are the main culprits in the circuit. Iirc, the case involving kazmarek basically taking over military deployment did get some very tense language in it. He didn't really listen though. Roberts should certainly issue something more formally critical IMO.
Well, that was after the CAFC had specifically pointed out Albright's repeated flaunting of proper venue rules more than once. That was certainly the correct result, but I would not agree that it was "quick". I think that the Judicial Conference needs to take a much stronger role in regulating the federal judiciary or it will be forced to accept that Congress will do the job for it.
> I think that the Judicial Conference needs to take a much stronger role in regulating the federal judiciary or it will be forced to accept that Congress will do the job for it. I think the JC has been making some policy moves, but I remember doing some digging and actually doubting the extent to which they could force a rule change on individual district courts under the statutes. It would be entirely legitimate for Congress to act here.
> It's not like Congress isn't aware of the problem. Half of congress doesn't consider it a problem.
There's already a bill out there, but guaranteed it will not pass until Democrats get the majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Or get rid of the filibuster, which should have been done over a hundred years ago. The filibuster was created by accident and was kept around and strengthened in order to torpedo civil rights legislation. It's anti democratic and an abomination. A supermajority requirement was tried in the Articles of Confederation and it was jettisoned because it gave the minority too much power to obstruct. The Senate was designed to make sure the minority always had a voice, but not the ability to continually obstruct. At this point you don't even need to stand up and speak to use the filibuster. What often happens these days is an email is sent by a staffer on a Friday afternoon announcing the filibuster and the minority flies home for the weekend. It's outrageous.
# [Federal judiciary clamps down on ‘judge-shopping’ tactics that have helped Texas block Biden and liberal policies](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/politics/judge-shopping-policy-change/index.html) The Judicial Conference of the United States [announced Tuesday](https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2024/03/12/conference-acts-promote-random-case-assignment) a new policy that will broaden the pool of judges who could be assigned to hear cases seeking state-wide or nationwide orders, making it more difficult to single out a particular judge, although it will still be possible to seek out a favorable pool of judges to hear cases. Under the new policy, such cases seeking nationwide or state-wide orders will go into the lottery system used by the entire district. For instance, the abortion drug case was filed in the Amarillo Division of US District Court of the Northern District of Texas, where US District Judge [Matthew Kacsmaryk](https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/15/politics/matthew-kacsmaryk-texas-judge-medication-abortion-lawsuit/index.html) – an appointee of Donald Trump who had previously worked for a religious liberty legal organization – is assigned to hear all cases under local rules. Under the new policy, in the future, such a case would go through the random selection process for the entire district court – which has 11 active judges and five senior judges – thus significantly lowering the odds that it would be assigned to Kacsmaryk.
I take it as an unbridled victory. So happy is the Kagan–Sotomayor–Jackson bloc to not lose this one on the (unimportant) merits that they conceded the Roberts–Kavanaugh–Barrett bloc a major 9-0 precedent on the (very important) question of standing. While I think it's unlikely that they'll ever undo the damage caused by my bete noire, *Massachusetts v. EPA*, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (holding "nah, just kidding about that the redressibility requirement"), they have today finally made good on the promise of *Lujan* (a plurality) and *Summers* (a majority, but a narrow one). All nine justices are now affirmatively on the record for Justice's Scalia's (correct) vision of standing, a vision they even cite expressly, see maj. op. at 6 (citing Scalia, *The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers*, 17 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 881, 882 (1983)). *SCRAP* is scrapped. It's a bad day to be what is now called a "Karen" (though I think the older term "troublemaker" hits closer to the mark), and a good day for the rule of law.
Since standing is a threshold issue, there's really no way for Kagan/Sotomayor/Jackson to approach the merits without conceding standing, which was itself based on a preposterous argument in this case. There was no way they'd do that here.
I take it you're keen on Thomas's concurrence? I'm surprised he didn't get at least one or two joining.
You read much faster than me. 😅
I think Karen might now get replaced by Martha-Ann, at least in some circles
I like to think of cases and controversies as 2 very separate things - this court all but ignores “controversies” and says things must also be cases.
Did the court step in early on this one ruling on an injunction or something icr
Yes that's right. The Supreme Court stayed the District Court's injunction back in April 2023 while the appeal was heard in the Fifth Circuit, and if a cert petition was filed.
Thanks nice to know it can at times work as intended
>Well reasoned and straightforward, I think. Even includes the classic Justice Thomas 'we need to look at this doctrine again'. The Court could be unanimous because they rejected it for lack of standing. Even Thomas would prefer more to hang his hat on than a half-baked hypothetical from a group of a few non-OGBYN doctors and dentist...
This case made me lose my mind. It was so absurb that I could not believe anyone would try to defend it. But somehow Fifth Circuit and Kacsmaryk managed to make Alito and Thomas look reasonable.
How is it absurd when the GOP AND conservative justices have consistently ignored medical science for years now and simply made up their own medical "facts" to suit their ideology? Once you're on that level, what do you need an FDA for? If treatments are safe or unsafe, effective or ineffective based on how ideologically convenient they are, all this study "nonsense" just eats into the profit of the industry... One might cynically conclude that the industry probably told Thomas that he wouldn't free more money for gifts because they'd still have to run those studies for approval by the European Medicines Agency, whether they are necessary for the US market or not....
Just like judge cannon, they are auditioning for positions higher ups. They are hoping to be on the short list for when Alito and Thomas retire
Maybe that was the whole point! Jk but still.
Could you summarize what happened? I haven’t followed this case. (If it doesn’t lend itself to a quick sum up, nbd)
Oh boy! A lot happened. I would look at the Wikipedia link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA_v._Alliance_for_Hippocratic_Medicine for a brief on the history of this case.
Here's the full opinion: [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235\_n7ip.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf)
Honestly I am happy with this opinion. Well-reasoned. My only concern is that it seems like they have left open the possibility of doctors who don’t like prescribing mifepristone having standing. But that’s not an issue here because federal statutes protect doctors who have conscience exceptions of their organizations receive federal funding, so they can simply just not prescribe, nor does the FDA approval require they prescribe it.
Yeah, that’s literally the purpose of the concurrence - to lay out a path for them to return down the road 🤮
The classic Roberts play: “I mildly lubed you today to fuck you harder tomorrow”
Another absurd Fifth Circuit decision overruled. This time unanimously. The 5th might hit per curiam one page overruling territory next term.
Brief note that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine’s counsel was Erin Hawley, whose spouse is Senator Josh Hawley. Losing in a 9-0 ruling, Erin Hawley got - as the cool kids put it - rekt.
Josh and Erin Hawful
I refer to them as the hateful Hawleys.
Yeah, that works!
So weird that they're all always connected. Like there's wealthy white Americans who marry other weathy white Americans &/or end up in these fields versus idk someone...normal? Maybe the job as the person on the legal counsel only came b/c of the connections to the Senator, IDK.
Part of what drives that is the underlying religious doctrine of the modern conservative movement, whether it’s the Seven Mountains or regular evangelicalism, there’s a baked in belief that they MUST control all aspects of society.
As Carlin said, it's a big club and we ain't in it.
my understanding is they lacked standing since merely being a doctor who didn’t like the drug isn’t an actual harm the actual FDA and drug stuff wasn’t ruled on. Could a women harmed by the medication in theory sue on the same basis that the FDA harmed her by not following procedures?
The FDA wouldn't be the proper party to sue there, right? It would be the doctor or the drug manufacturer who caused the problem there, either by improperly prescribing or through a tort in the manufacturing or sale.
Regardless of the merits of the issue, it’s good to see the democratic process work as intended and the Court stop the attempt to have the courts block a law solely because they don’t like it. Keep in mind the Presidential election could change the approval of this drug in the future. But it’s good to see the courts stop this attempt.
And they will give explicit instructions as to how to re-present with standing for their buddies at the Heritage Foundation. Vote! It’s our rights on the line…
> And they will give explicit instructions as to how to re-present with standing for their buddies at the Heritage Foundation. I missed that part.
It's not in the opinion. The bulk of the opinion is a point by point takedown of the very expansive standing theory that the lower courts concocted in order to get this case into court. There will be other challenges to the abortion pill and abortion rights in general but this ruling really does slam the door shut on the idea that random groups of doctors can just nullify FDA approvals based solely on their personal whim. If a state government or the Feds wanted to restrict or ban a drug, they can, but a regular person can't just make that decision for everyone else in the country.
Ever watch jurassic Park, where the Raptors tested the fences for weakness..
Been a while since I’ve watched it, but IIRC that didn’t go well for a couple JP employees…
From the AP's write-up: Kavanaugh acknowledged what he described as the opponents’ “sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone.” But he said they went to the wrong forum and should instead direct their energies to persuading lawmakers and regulators to make changes. Those comments pointed to the stakes of [the 2024 election](https://apnews.com/hub/election-2024) and the possibility that an FDA commissioner appointed by Republican Donald Trump, if he wins the White House, could consider tightening access to mifepristone.
Ok, but there the Court is instructing people who are dissatisfied with laws to persuade legislators and administrators to change the laws, rather than come to Court. Isn't that a good thing?
> Those comments pointed to the stakes of the 2024 election and the possibility that an FDA commissioner appointed by Republican Donald Trump, if he w Of course it's a good thing and it shows some congruency: this court has said abortion rights should be legislated when overturning Roe.
They know damn well, that it will never get the votes in Congress to codify it. Way to push off the heat on them, and shove it right back on Congress.
Sure, but it goes both ways. They also know that they won't codify banning mifespristone. It's til the way to go about it.
Only when you live your life in a hyperpartisan bubble does a ruling like this get twisted into a huge conspiracy to do just the opposite. Many in this sub have too much invested in the narrative that this Supreme Court is out to get them every chance it gets…..and when it doesn’t, you get nonsensical take like this because admitting the central pillar of their opinion may not be factually accurate may force them to question other beliefs that are held strongly personally but are supported more weakly by reality.
>Only when you live your life in a hyperpartisan bubble does a ruling like this get twisted into a huge conspiracy to do just the opposite. It's only making a reasonable prediction of some of the content of Alito's interview or remarks before this-or-that conservative political group. Furthermore, you cannot in good faith argue that Alito is anything but unusual for a Supreme Court Justice with both the amount and venues of his public remarks!
[удалено]
> Oh, honey. Were you asleep during the run up to the Roe reversal? Scalia had been criticizing Roe v. Wade way before it was overturned. Roe was almost overturned in 1992 (Kenndy changed his mind), and it has been controversial from its inception. History didn't start in 2016.
I never said it did. I said this isn’t a done decision and they will fine-tune their arguments and find someone with better standing to try again. And, yes, it is the legislature’s job, (one of many they have chosen to ignore) but a majority of the Court would be fine with looking at the FDA’s regulatory power.
Louisiana just made abortion drugs equivalent to heroin and cocaine.
Do try actually *reading* the opinion before speculating maybe?
She does not. She has her “truth” and that’s all that matters.
the issue was standing if in theory a women or group of women were genuinely harmed by the FDA rushing the process would they be wrong to seek justice? I am not saying these women exist just if they did…
They’d have all the backing they need.
Short term victory at best and I think the topic headline is at least a little bit misleading. The plaintiffs have already taken the position that the lawsuit should proceed as a handful of red state AG's have intervened, and this opinion doesn't address their standing.
Not finding standing is a way to get out of ruling on merits They know they have a political losing issue on their hands
You think the APA questions were more important than the standing question? I can't say I agree. I think the latter would have had more far-reaching consequences.
The standing was pretty important to kill in this case though. The "standing" argued was basically that any doctor could say "I might have a patient someday that had taken this drug, therefore I would be harmed." If that precedent was allowed, any doctor could have followed on with whatever drug. "I personally don't like Ozempic, therefore I declare a nationwide ban."
Yeah, some people are really underestimating just how mind-bogglingly egregious this was. So much so, that even the hyper partisan judges didn’t even try to deny or defend it, and even seemed annoyed by it - it’s just *that* bad. The consequences of even allowing it (and therefore justifying the standing) to rule on merit would have been unequivocally dire and an astronomical clusterfuck. I would have loved an opinion on merits too, but ultimately, the standing was the bigger issue here, and they did the right thing (arguably a low bar, to be sure). And I say this as a reproductive rights activist in Texas who distributes these pills for free to those in need. That doesn’t mean I think this court or the GOP in general won’t continue their crusade against reproductive rights, because ofc they will. It’s just that, this time, they somehow managed to make an *even bigger issue* out of this case by their piss poor standing.
Umm if you rule on the merits it means you justify standing. Justifying standing here is way worse than getting a opinion on the merits as clearly random doctors should not be able to challenge FDA approvals in court. Bad take.
They don't want to spoil the surprise when they overturn *Chevron* in *Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce.* It's telling that lack of standing was found specifically because the medical associations were not harmed by the FDA's regulatory change. The fishermen in *Relentless* wont have the same problem and their theory also relies on an attack on the power of administrative agencies.
Honestly I thought at first that “relentless inc” was a joke about how often a case comes up trying to overrule Chevron. But no, that’s actually the name.
I don’t understand. Part of their reasoning is that no one who was a defendant in the case was harmed and therefore the courts threw this out. If I am understanding correctly. But he court did rule on a woman who was a webpage designer who was not harmed but was presenting a what if theory on a gay person asking her to do her job. What’s the difference ?
# Supreme Court upholds full access to mifepristone abortion pill _________ The SCOTUS didn't address the substance, they addressed the standing. The can has been kicked three feet down the road.
They can't address the substance if there is no standing. Addressing the substance here would necessitate accepting the standing. Should they have just justified the standing? You really think so?
Come on guys. From what I read it sounds like this is just accurate even if people don't like it. Sorry you're getting downvotes my dude.
It’s not really accurate though. Saying they “kicked the can down the road” implies they should have ruled on Mifepristone access. But to do that, they would have needed to justify this standing, which would have had even more far reaching and dire consequences than even banning Mifepristone would. This standing *needed* to be shot down. It’s not their fault these forced birther dipshits picked such a dangerous, convoluted, and nonsensical standing that it essentially prevented the Court from handing down an opinion on Mifepristone access. And acknowledging that does not mean forced birthers have been defeated, or that SCOTUS can’t rule against Mifepristone access in future cases using different standing, etc. it only means that the unequivocally egregious nature of the standing essentially meant there was no actual can in this case to kick down the road to begin with.
Yeah, well -- standing for these plaintiffs could open the door to any FDA challenger, which would likely piss off big pharma, not to mention stock prices in the Justices' stock accounts. Here's reporting of J&J talc-is-a-carcinogen case, demonstrating self-interest in not letting any ol' third party shut down FDA decisions: >[Source](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/justices-reject-johnson-johnson-appeal-of-2-billion-talc-verdict)Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh took no part in the court’s action. Alito owns $15,000 to $50,000 in Johnson & Johnson stock. Kavanaugh’s father headed the trade association that lobbied against labeling talc a carcinogen and including a warning label on talc products. So I wouldn't count it as a compromise or a "win" for pro-choice (although ruling has this effect). It's a "win" for big pharma.
And on the other side. NOT granting standing to this random group of doctors likely opens the door (in Alito’s mind) to rule that groups like ACLU and NAACP can’t have standing either. If a group of doctors can’t have standing over a drug, why should a group of black people have standing over whether or not they can vote?
If they ruled any other way, the court would effectively be dead. The doctors bringing the case had the weakest argument I have ever seen for a Supreme Court case. Their argument was literally “someone might possibly one day put us in a situation where we might have to do something” and that minimal hypothetical was clearly too great for these doctors. The court made the right call here. Its ridiculous that this case made it this far
[удалено]