The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the combined cases concerning the Food & Drug Administration’s regulation of mifepristone, on March 26.
This morning, on the Orders List, the Court denied a motion to intervene filed by Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho. These states argued that the should be allowed to intervene so as to ensure that the requirements of Article III standing are met so that the Court can reach the merits. (This is, I take it, a tacit admission that the plaintiffs’ standing claims are quite tenuous, as I have argued at length in some of the poses linked below.) The states base this argument, in part, on their successful motion to intervene in the trial court (which Adam Unikowsky dissects here). In any event, the Court rejected the motion.
The Court also ruled on two applications to file late-submitted amicus briefs, one from the American Bar Association and one from former Commissioners of the FDA. Interestingly enough, the Court rejected the former brief, but accepted the latter. Looking at the two briefs, this seems like a reasonable call. The FDA Commissioners brief provides relevant expertise that might be absent from other filed briefs. The ABA brief, not so much. Indeed, one has to wonder why the ABA brief was filed at all, as this case does not relate (even tangentially) to the needs or interests of the legal profession and does not add much given what has already been filed on the FDA’s behalf in this case. Moreover, filing briefs like this is something the ABA should avoid if it wants to be seen as an apolitical organization that represents the legal profession and can speak to questions relating to the practice of law with any degree of authority.
The Court also denied a motion to intervene filed by Gregory J. Roden as “Next Friend of Americans en ventre sa mere.” No surprise there.
For those interested in more about this case, yesterday I participated in a panel discussion on this case with my colleague Jessie Hill, sponsored by the Law-Medicine Center at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Video of that program may be viewed here.
Also, here are my prior blog posts about this case and the issues it raises:
“The Next Abortion Battlegrounds,” June 22, 2022; “Assessing the Legal Claims in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA,” March 8, 2023; “AHM v. FDA: A Contrary View and a Rejoinder,” March 28, 2023; “Blue-State AGs Have A Mifepristone Lawsuit of Their Own,” March 29, 2023; “Two (Wrong) Mifepristone Court Rulings in One Day,” April 8, 2023; “The Good and Bad of the Fifth Circuit’s Abortion Pill Ruling,” April 13, 2023. “BREAKING: Supreme Court to Consider Fifth Circuit’s Abortion Pill Decision,” Dec. 13, 2023.
The post Supreme Court Denies Red State Effort to Intervene in Mifepristone Case appeared first on Reason.com.
