Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, wrote that while plaintiffs have “sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone,” that does not mean they have a federal case.
Curve ball Kavanaugh is so hard to pin down. I’m grateful he voted to protect access, but I can’t seem to predict his position. Maybe with time he’ll turn into the right-wing version of Thomas and become a full throttle traitor to his party.
plaintiffs have “sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone,” that does not mean they have a federal case.
I read that as “Rephrase the case and send it back”.
When they say that the doctors lack standing, what they’re saying is that the doctors have not suffered harm as a result of the FDA’s action. The doctors are not obligated to provide the medication that the FDA has authorized. Unless the doctors can prove that they, personally, have been affected negatively by the decision, there can be no court-ordered remedy for their injured moral fee-fees.
On the other hand, a woman that is unable to obtain an abortion because a state banned a drug that the FDA had approved would have standing; she would be able to demonstrate that the law had directly, personally affected her ability to get the health care she needed.
As far as I know, you are generally correct that you can’t sue a government becuase they didn’t ban a thing. But you can sue when the gov’t has banned a thing, and that ban has caused you direct harm. This would be especially true if her lack of access to reproductive care meant that she had suffered serious physical harm, or lost her ability to have children in the future.
Maybe, but elsewhere he suggests this issue should be decided by elected officials:
“The plaintiffs may present their concerns and objections to the president and FDA in the regulatory process or to Congress and the president in the legislative process,” Kavanaugh wrote. “And they may also express their views about abortion and mifepristone to fellow citizens, including in the political and electoral processes.”
They need a case where mifepristone has caused any harm at all to the plaintiffs at the very least. That this case even got here is a testament to the insanity of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Good point. I realized after I commented that he was just writing on behalf of the court. Regardless, he’s been the only Justice to dissent from party opinion on several cases recently.
They voted that the case is obviously lacking on technical grounds of standing. That’s not the same as voting to protect access. They just want a better set of plaintiffs.
Moreover, the law has never permitted doctors to challenge the government’s loosening of general public safety requirements simply because more individuals might then show up at emergency rooms or in doctors’ offices with follow-on injuries. Citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions
Pg 3 of the opinion
No one wants to set a precedent for sueing the government every time they don’t stop a potential bad thing from happening.
It’s taking up headlines because it directly affects millions of women, immediately.
The NLRB decision (also unanimous) limits their ability to obtain injunctions, but the NLRB only does this a couple of times a month nationwide and most people will never notice a change.
Curve ball Kavanaugh is so hard to pin down. I’m grateful he voted to protect access, but I can’t seem to predict his position. Maybe with time he’ll turn into the right-wing version of Thomas and become a full throttle traitor to his party.
I read that as “Rephrase the case and send it back”.
No, that’s not what it’s saying at all.
When they say that the doctors lack standing, what they’re saying is that the doctors have not suffered harm as a result of the FDA’s action. The doctors are not obligated to provide the medication that the FDA has authorized. Unless the doctors can prove that they, personally, have been affected negatively by the decision, there can be no court-ordered remedy for their injured moral fee-fees.
On the other hand, a woman that is unable to obtain an abortion because a state banned a drug that the FDA had approved would have standing; she would be able to demonstrate that the law had directly, personally affected her ability to get the health care she needed.
deleted by creator
…But that’s not what I was saying.
As far as I know, you are generally correct that you can’t sue a government becuase they didn’t ban a thing. But you can sue when the gov’t has banned a thing, and that ban has caused you direct harm. This would be especially true if her lack of access to reproductive care meant that she had suffered serious physical harm, or lost her ability to have children in the future.
Maybe, but elsewhere he suggests this issue should be decided by elected officials:
Perhaps a sovcit can provide the correct forms and precise terms to use, in their proper order.
They need a more compelling case of mifepristone causing harm. It’s probably best for those who use it to keep their experiences private if possible.
They need a case where mifepristone has caused any harm at all to the plaintiffs at the very least. That this case even got here is a testament to the insanity of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Even that wouldn’t work. If a drug causes you harm, you sue the company that made it.
They need a compelling case of how the FDA harmed them in order to sue the FDA. I don’t think that will be easy.
Not just Kavanaugh in this case. This was a 9-0 decision, even Alito and Thomas voted to protect access.
Alito gotta raise his reputation points after the leaks and flag debacle.
Good point. I realized after I commented that he was just writing on behalf of the court. Regardless, he’s been the only Justice to dissent from party opinion on several cases recently.
They voted that the case is obviously lacking on technical grounds of standing. That’s not the same as voting to protect access. They just want a better set of plaintiffs.
“Our corruption to the core would be too obvious if we heard this case”
That’s wholly incorrect.
They refused to consider the case because “the plaintiffs failed to show they had suffered any injury”.
Pg 3 of the opinion
No one wants to set a precedent for sueing the government every time they don’t stop a potential bad thing from happening.
Meanwhile, this case is taking up headlines at the same time the Supreme Court released another decision eroding union rights.
The NRLB case didn’t erode anything. The decision followed precedent and kept things status quo.
It’s taking up headlines because it directly affects millions of women, immediately.
The NLRB decision (also unanimous) limits their ability to obtain injunctions, but the NLRB only does this a couple of times a month nationwide and most people will never notice a change.