Supreme Court rejects bid to restrict abortion pill access

Update: 

• The Supreme Court rejected a 5th Circuit decision to restrict access to the abortion drug mifepristone. 
• The high court disagreed with the 5th Circuit decision that a coalition of antiabortion groups had standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of mifepristone, according to the Supreme Court ruling. 
• The 5th Circuit’s decision threatened to challenge access to mifepristone through telehealth and prescriptions sent by mail. 
• The Supreme Court cited the Constitution while ruling a plaintiff’s desire to make a drug less accessible does not establish standing for them to sue. 
• The mifepristone case is the first abortion-related dispute to reach the Supreme Court since its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in June 2022. 

Abortion drug lawsuit overview: 

• Who: A federal judge in Texas reversed his decision to delay docketing a hearing for a lawsuit filed against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by anti-abortion activists hours after reporters and media outlets published a letter accusing him of violating the U.S. Constitution by allegedly trying to keep it a secret. 
• Why: The judge had initially chosen to delay docketing the hearing in an attempt to avoid the potential for disruptive protests at the courthouse during it.
• Where: The lawsuit was filed in Texas federal court.

(March 20, 2023)

A federal judge in Texas has chosen to docket a hearing for a lawsuit filed against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by anti-abortion activists, following pushback by reporters and media outlets accusing the judge of trying to keep it a secret. 

The lawsuit in question was filed against the FDA by anti-abortion activists wanting the federal agency to rescind approvals for abortion drugs, such as mifepristone and misoprostol, Law360 reports. 

Reports and media outlets, meanwhile, published a letter written March 13 addressed to the judge overseeing the case, Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, in which they argued he was violating the U.S. Constitution by allegedly keeping the schedule for the hearing secret. 

Judge Kacsmaryk had announced the court would “delay docketing of the notice of an upcoming hearing” while requesting “the parties not make the hearing schedule public before it is docketed,” according to a Washington Post report. 

The letter to Judge Kacsmaryk was written in collaboration by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and multiple news outlets — including The Washington Post and NBCUniversal News Group, among others. 

Court updates docket hours after media published letter written to Texas judge

The court ultimately updated its docket only hours after the letter was published, to indicate that a hearing for the lawsuit was set for March 15, Law360 reports. 

“The Court’s delayed docketing of notice of Wednesday’s hearing, and its request to the parties and their counsel not to disclose the hearing schedule publicly, harm everyone, including those who support the plaintiffs’ position and those who support the defendants’ position,” the letter stated. 

Judge Kacsmaryk reportedly initially chose to delay docketing the hearing until late March 14, allegedly to try to avoid the potential for disruptive protests taking place at the courthouse. 

A group of five women filed a lawsuit against Texas earlier this month over claims that medical professionals in the state are hesitant to perform abortions due to “uncertainty surrounding the meaning of exception” for the state’s bans on the procedure.

Do you believe the Texas federal judge was wrong for allegedly wanting to delay docketing the court hearing? Let us know in the comments.

The abortion drug lawsuit is Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00223, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Florida passes bill banning abortion after 6 weeks
• Wyoming judge temporarily blocks statewide abortion ban while court decides constitutionality
• Rael class action claims feminine wipes falsely advertised as ‘natural’
• Recent sunscreen class actions allege false advertising