Matthew Kacsmaryk allows states to intervene in mifepristone case

Main: In this image from Senate Judiciary Committee video, Matthew Kacsmaryk listens during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Dec. 13, 2017 (Senate Judiciary Committee via AP). Inset: Mifepristone tablets are seen at a Planned Parenthood clinic on Thursday, July 18, 2024, in Ames, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall, File)

The Texas federal judge appointed by Donald Trump who unilaterally ordered the fda revoke approval of now widely used abortion drug permitted Idaho, Kansas and Missouri move forward with their own attempts to limit access to the drug. The ruling comes after the case’s original plaintiffs dismissed their lawsuit, and even though none of the three new plaintiff states include Texas, where the case is moving forward.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk is the Only federal judge in the Northern District of Texas – meaning that cases filed in that district will surely come before him. As expected, several anti-abortion groups strategically filed cases in Amarillo and were rewarded with Kacsmaryk’s favorable rulings.

The trio of anti-abortion states wants the federal Food and Drug Administration to ban telehealth prescriptions for the drug mifepristone, require it to be used only in the first seven weeks of pregnancy and require visitation doctors in person to obtain the drug. Kacsmaryk’s ruling Thursday allowed the states to amend their lawsuit and intervene as plaintiffs.

In 2023, Kacsmaryk issued an unprecedented decision that ordered the FDA to revoke its approval of the drug for decades.

Mifepristone is part of a two-drug combination used in the United States for medical abortions. Misoprostol, the second drug used as part of the regimen, also has uses unrelated to termination of pregnancy. In 2021, the FDA announced that it would no longer require patients to appear in person to obtain a prescription for mifepristone after reviewing safety data from pregnant women who used it during the COVID-19 pandemic. The policy was formalized in 2023, which later led to the Kacsmaryk decision and ignited a national debate over judicial authority related to FDA approvals.

Kacsmaryk’s decision was unanimously overturned by the United States Supreme Courtbut for limited procedural reasons.

In the current case, Kacsmaryk allowed the red states’ amended claim to proceed. In their filing, they claimed that the FDA’s relaxed restrictions on mifepristone allowed the pills to cross state lines, endangering women’s lives and undermining its strict anti-abortion laws.

The states are challenging FDA actions that have eased restrictions on the drug since 2016, including approving it for use in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy and allowing it to be prescribed via telemedicine and delivered by mail.

The Biden administration moved to dismiss the case, but Kacsmaryk was not receptive to the administration’s arguments. The essence of the government’s position is based on basic procedural grounds: the original plaintiffs in the lawsuit voluntarily dismissed their case in November, and therefore there is no valid action in which Idaho, Kansas and Missouri can intervene.

The Trump appointee rejected that argument and said intervening states have the right to make their case to him in Texas.

In his four-page ruling, the judge wrote that the Justice Department’s filings “deftly cite lines to appear to advance its position” but that the legal precedents it relied on were not “truly persuasive to its position.” On the issue of Amarillo, Texas, as the venue for the case, Kacsmaryk said, “venue remains in dispute here and should be appropriately addressed at a stage where each side can fully argue the issue.”

The case will now proceed before Kacsmaryk as the trio of states attempt to make their case against the FDA regulations.

You can read the full sentence here.

Related Posts

Dangerous – RTL TV Program II

Romanian police raid homes after presidential election declared invalid

F1 drivers respond to FIA treatment in stern open letter of warning