In Dobbs, the Court claimed that it was returning abortion access to the states. After Friday's dueling mifepristone rulings, the Justices may have to revisit that promise as early as this week
The FDA and separately the United States Solicitor (DOJ) do not need "deuling decisions" to proceed to "emergency" relief that was used back in 1974 in U.S. vs Nixon. For procedurally how "Cert before Judgment" works, see the first few paragraphs of U.S. versus Nixon (1974) (thank you Leon Jaworski). The pin cite is at pages 683-684 ... see the first few paragraphs of the opinion.
First, make sure you understand the profound Admistrative issues at stake ... a single assignment activist from the Texas Panhandle on medicines? Read the dicta carefully. What other medications are next?
Second, Notice to Appellate attorneys: scrutinize the boilerplate allegations on "associational standing" helpfully (to the plaintiffs) cleaned up by the Judge. Typically, litigants that are seeking "associational standing" do not have an actual person to fulfill the necessary "standing" requirement. But, Plaintiffs here plead what they must to get an actual person's name OFF the case caption.
Do not LOL as I did at the Judges' fabricated obstetrics treatment "desert " or its alleged opposite, the purported "stress" incurred by Obstetricians. Do not look for any evidence in the record even though procedurally this matter is a Preliminary Injunction --- a national injunction in scope no less.
In this Texas Panhandle case, bogus Plaintiffs do not want "members" out front on the case caption. Heck, you could have sanctions exposure.
Recap: I advocate "Cert before Judgment" now ... in this SCOTUS term, April to June 2023. Remember, it only takes 4 votes to grant Cert & Chief Justce Robert's "back to the states" nightmare could be challenged quickly.
I do not have Neal Katyal's experience but, 7-2 is not impossible to get rid of this scotus' Frankenstein.
Hat tip to my sister-in-law, law professor, who is a standing expert. Years ago she explaned to me that "Trees have Standing".
I’m a bit confused. Doesn’t the “irreparable harm” in an injunction refer to harm to plaintiffs? Were unborn persons hidden plaintiffs? As to the doctors “harmed” by not being able to get “informed consent” from patients- -which is the more reasonable remedy?
--Having the drug unavailable in a distant state or
--choosing not to prescribe it themselves
The GOP- party of Personal Responsibility for everyone but themselves
Susan were in the area of legal sophistry from Amarillo, TEXAS.
Preliminary Injunctions do require "irreperable harm" but, the harm here is alleged to be "members" "time" "attention" [ not joking] "space in hospitals" , "other equipment & medicines". In short, anything you can think off to manufacture "standing".
This is an attempt to cut off health care to about 5 million female patients. The autocratic male dominated gambit will fail. The need is for adroit appellate lawyering.
I would read the FDA,s brief FIRST to get the medical services & medications (plural) down & correctly presented. Then read the DOJ's Brief. I have been advocating "CERT befor Judgment" but, that would require analysis by NEAL KATYAL as Apellants' Counsel and targetrd 5, 6, or 7 SCOTUS votes to be successful.
Would it be possible to "flood" a single-judge district court in Texas (Kascmaryk's or otherwise) with enough lawsuits such that it would force the judiciary to fix the problem of single-judge districts?
If so, I'm thinking a web-wide campaign "soliciting" cases for the chosen district - ideally making enough noise that newspapers print stories about it.
Fast forward to November 2022, when a shadowy entity formed only after Dobbs (and named the “Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine”), represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, filed a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s 2000 approval of mifepristone and its subsequent revisions to the approvals. The Alliance appeared to operate out of, of all places, Amarillo, Texas—
2 questions
1 HOW MANY LIVE IN THE AMARILLO AREA AND WHERE DO THE OTHERS LIVE
2 ARE THE LITIGANTS PERSONALLY BEING INJURED BY THE SALE OF MIFEPRISTONE
The FDA and separately the United States Solicitor (DOJ) do not need "deuling decisions" to proceed to "emergency" relief that was used back in 1974 in U.S. vs Nixon. For procedurally how "Cert before Judgment" works, see the first few paragraphs of U.S. versus Nixon (1974) (thank you Leon Jaworski). The pin cite is at pages 683-684 ... see the first few paragraphs of the opinion.
First, make sure you understand the profound Admistrative issues at stake ... a single assignment activist from the Texas Panhandle on medicines? Read the dicta carefully. What other medications are next?
Second, Notice to Appellate attorneys: scrutinize the boilerplate allegations on "associational standing" helpfully (to the plaintiffs) cleaned up by the Judge. Typically, litigants that are seeking "associational standing" do not have an actual person to fulfill the necessary "standing" requirement. But, Plaintiffs here plead what they must to get an actual person's name OFF the case caption.
Do not LOL as I did at the Judges' fabricated obstetrics treatment "desert " or its alleged opposite, the purported "stress" incurred by Obstetricians. Do not look for any evidence in the record even though procedurally this matter is a Preliminary Injunction --- a national injunction in scope no less.
In this Texas Panhandle case, bogus Plaintiffs do not want "members" out front on the case caption. Heck, you could have sanctions exposure.
Recap: I advocate "Cert before Judgment" now ... in this SCOTUS term, April to June 2023. Remember, it only takes 4 votes to grant Cert & Chief Justce Robert's "back to the states" nightmare could be challenged quickly.
I do not have Neal Katyal's experience but, 7-2 is not impossible to get rid of this scotus' Frankenstein.
Hat tip to my sister-in-law, law professor, who is a standing expert. Years ago she explaned to me that "Trees have Standing".
I’m a bit confused. Doesn’t the “irreparable harm” in an injunction refer to harm to plaintiffs? Were unborn persons hidden plaintiffs? As to the doctors “harmed” by not being able to get “informed consent” from patients- -which is the more reasonable remedy?
--Having the drug unavailable in a distant state or
--choosing not to prescribe it themselves
The GOP- party of Personal Responsibility for everyone but themselves
Susan were in the area of legal sophistry from Amarillo, TEXAS.
Preliminary Injunctions do require "irreperable harm" but, the harm here is alleged to be "members" "time" "attention" [ not joking] "space in hospitals" , "other equipment & medicines". In short, anything you can think off to manufacture "standing".
This is an attempt to cut off health care to about 5 million female patients. The autocratic male dominated gambit will fail. The need is for adroit appellate lawyering.
I would read the FDA,s brief FIRST to get the medical services & medications (plural) down & correctly presented. Then read the DOJ's Brief. I have been advocating "CERT befor Judgment" but, that would require analysis by NEAL KATYAL as Apellants' Counsel and targetrd 5, 6, or 7 SCOTUS votes to be successful.
Would it be possible to "flood" a single-judge district court in Texas (Kascmaryk's or otherwise) with enough lawsuits such that it would force the judiciary to fix the problem of single-judge districts?
If so, I'm thinking a web-wide campaign "soliciting" cases for the chosen district - ideally making enough noise that newspapers print stories about it.
Fast forward to November 2022, when a shadowy entity formed only after Dobbs (and named the “Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine”), represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, filed a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s 2000 approval of mifepristone and its subsequent revisions to the approvals. The Alliance appeared to operate out of, of all places, Amarillo, Texas—
2 questions
1 HOW MANY LIVE IN THE AMARILLO AREA AND WHERE DO THE OTHERS LIVE
2 ARE THE LITIGANTS PERSONALLY BEING INJURED BY THE SALE OF MIFEPRISTONE