Before departing for the holidays, the Supreme Court had a couple of “gifts” of merits review in a couple of high profile cases with the possibility of a third before New Year’s.
Starting at the top of the list is the dubious case brought by Mrs. Senator Josh Hawley. (Normally, the fact that a relative of a politician is involved in a case would not be noteworthy but whne you put yourself out as a power couple and you file the case in a location which assures that it will be heard by a judge who donated to the relative’s campaign and the relative played a large role in getting that judge appointed to the bench, this clearly qualifies as a team effort for which both share the blame.) In this case, plaintiffs are a group of doctors who claim that they have standing to challenge the FDA’s decisions on approving Mifepristone because at some point they may be forced to provide treatment for a patient who took Mifepristone and had complications. These political doctors sought to both invalidate recent changes to the guidance that the FDA gives on Mifepristone and its original approval. Having filed the case in a location that assured them that the case would be heard by a judge who would twist the law and the facts to rule in their favor, they succeeded at the trial court on both parts of their case. The FDA and the drug manufacture appealed this rubber stamp decision to the Fifth Circuit. Even the Fifth Circuit could not twist the law in a manner that would allow them to affirm the decision as it relates to the original approval of Mifepristone, but they did find flaws in the administrative process which allowed them to affirm the decision with regards to the more recent changes approving a broader use for Mifepristone. Everybody then sought U.S. Supreme Court review. Several months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. This past week, the Supreme Court granted the review sought by the FDA and the drug manufacturer, but denied the review sought by the medical hacks.
While this Supreme Court having any case related to abortion is always a matter of concern, the decision to take the FDA’s appeal and reject the appeal by the medical hacks is the best result possible for the pro-choice community. And, the main issue in the case is the FDA procedures for approving medications and expanding “on label” uses after initial approval. As such, the impact of a ruling against the FDA in this case would have a major negative impact on pharmaceutical companies. As such, it is possible that six of the justices might put the abortion aspects of this case to the side and simply focus on it as an administrative procedure case. If not, there is always the November elections.
