Access to mifepristone battle in Amarillo court

AMARILLO – The Amarillo Tribune reports that in June, the Supreme Court unanimously preserved access to the medication mifepristone, used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the United States in 2023, by ruling that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine challenging the expansion of access to the medication by the Food and Drug Administration in 2016 and 2021 lacked a legal right to sue. The lawsuit sought to restrict access to mifepristone to include states where abortion is legal. The parties involved submitted a Joint Status Report to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, on Sept. 30. In the status report, as Defendants, the FDA said they believe that no further proceedings are necessary or warranted in the case, citing the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the original Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the FDA’s actions.

“Additionally, the State Intervenors cannot continue with their Complaint because intervention requires an existing suit within the Court’s jurisdiction, which is not present here,” the status report said. “And the State Intervenors’ claims cannot proceed as an independent suit because the States cannot satisfy venue requirements (and the States also independently lack legal standing.)” Intervenor-Defendant, Danco Laboratories, LLC, agreed with the FDA, the status report said. The Supreme Court unanimously stated in rejecting the plaintiff’s theories as insufficient to create an Article III case or controversy that “the federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs’ concerns about the FDA’s actions.” Citing the Supreme Court’s decision, they said the plaintiffs could present their concerns and objections to the President and FDA in the regulatory process or to Congress and the President in the legislative process. As a result, Danco Laboratories said the litigation should be over, according to the status report. As the Plaintiff, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine disagrees, as does the State of Missouri, the Intervenor-Plaintiffs. In the status report, they said the Supreme Court decided only whether the private plaintiffs amassed enough evidence to prove standing for the preliminary injunction, not whether their complaint should be dismissed.