One of the biggest cases on the Supreme Court’s spring docket was a case challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, the abortion drug. Right-wing groups are having a field day in recent years, with all of the Trump-appointed judges at the federal level, with those bonkers decisions being codified by the now hard-right-extremist Supreme Court (thanks to Trump-appointed SCOTUS justices). Banning mifepristone was on the far right’s wish list and they’ve been going through the motions at lower levels, getting temporary bans at the state level, all to get the cases kicked up to SCOTUS. Well, SCOTUS heard the case a few months ago and the decision was released on Thursday. Mifepristone is safe. For now. Surprisingly, it was a unanimous decision.
The Supreme Court on Thursday maintained access to a widely available abortion pill, rejecting a bid from a group of anti-abortion organizations and doctors to undo the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the drug. In a unanimous decision, written by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, the court held that the anti-abortion groups lacked a direct stake in the dispute, a requirement to challenge the F.D.A.’s approval of the pill, mifepristone.
“The plaintiffs do not prescribe or use mifepristone,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “And F.D.A. is not requiring them to do or refrain from doing anything.”
He added, “A plaintiff ’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue.”
The case originally sought to erase the F.D.A.’s approval of mifepristone. But by the time it reached the Supreme Court, the question had been narrowed to whether the agency had acted legally in 2016 and 2021, when it broadened distribution of the pill, eventually including telemedicine and mail options.
The ruling handed a muted victory to abortion rights groups. Even as they praised the decision for averting severe restrictions on the availability of the pill, they warned that the outcome could be short-lived. Anti-abortion groups vowed to press ahead, promising that the fight was far from over and raising the possibility that other plaintiffs, states in particular, would mount challenges to the drug.
The ruling did not affect separate restrictions on the pill in more than a dozen states that have passed near-total bans on abortion since the court eliminated a constitutional right to the procedure in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. (The bans do not distinguish between medication and surgical abortion.)
This is a technicality which even the most compromised boneheads of the Supreme Court could not overlook. They can’t just say “the FDA needs to stop distribution of an abortive drug based on vibes.” The right-wing group has zero standing and the FDA did their due diligence when they approved mifepristone years ago. Make no mistake though, abortion, reproductive rights, contraception and IVF are absolutely on the ballot this year, as they’ve been on the ballot for the past fifty years. Don’t get complacent about this sh-t like voters were in 2016. That complacency is the whole reason we’re still dealing with the long-term catastrophe of Trump-appointed judges and an empowered extremist right-wing.
A few more things about SCOTUS – the Senate just found that Republican megadonor Harlan Crow gave Clarence Thomas even more private flights and vacations than originally reported. And Samuel Alito thinks America needs to “return” to a “place of godliness.” Can these a–holes please be thrown off the court? Jesus Christ.
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar, Cover Images, Backgrid.
-
- -Washington, District of Columbia – 20210423-Supreme Court of the United States 2021 Group Photo Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on April 23, 2021. Seated from left: Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. -PICTURED: Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett -PHOTO by: Erin Schaff/POOL/CNP/startraksphoto.com -042321_Supreme-Court-Pool_016 This is an editorial, rights-managed image. Please contact Startraks Photo for licensing fee and rights information at sales@startraksphoto.com or call +1 212 414 9464 This image may not be published in any way that is, or might be deemed to be, defamatory, libelous, pornographic, or obscene. Please consult our sales department for any clarification needed prior to publication and use. Startraks Photo reserves the right to pursue unauthorized users of this material. If you are in violation of our intellectual property rights or copyright you may be liable for damages, loss of income, any profits you derive from the unauthorized use of this material and, where appropriate, the cost of collection and/or any statutory damages awarded
-
- Associate Justice Clarence Thomas poses for a group photograph at the Supreme Court building on June 1 2017 in Washington, DC.,Image: 513106017, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: WORLD RIGHTS- Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon.red – sales@avalon.red London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251, Model Release: no, Credit line: Olivier Douliery / Avalon
-
- Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh look on before the start of U.S. President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S. February 4, 2020.,Image: 563287352, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: WORLD RIGHTS – Fee Payable Upon Reproduction – For queries contact Avalon.red – sales@avalon.red London: +44 (0) 20 7421 6000 Los Angeles: +1 (310) 822 0419 Berlin: +49 (0) 30 76 212 251, Model Release: no, Credit line: Leah Millis / Avalon
-
- Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Clarence Thomas waits to administer the oath of office to Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC on Monday, October 26, 2020. US President Donald J. Trump and her husband Jesse M. Barrett look on.,Image: 565706222, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: usage worldwide, Model Release: no, Credit line: Chris Kleponis / DPA Picture Alliance / Avalon
-
- Premiere Of Warner Bros. Pictures’ “Aquaman” Featuring: Amber Heard Where: Hollywood, California, United States When: 12 Dec 2018 Credit: FayesVision/WENN.com
-
- Premiere Of Warner Bros. Pictures’ “Aquaman” Featuring: Amber Heard Where: Hollywood, California, United States When: 12 Dec 2018 Credit: FayesVision/WENN.com
-
- Premiere Of Warner Bros. Pictures’ “Aquaman” Featuring: Amber Heard Where: Hollywood, California, United States When: 12 Dec 2018 Credit: FayesVision/WENN.com
-
- Justices of the United States Supreme Court during a formal group photograph at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, Oct. 7, 2022. The court opened its new term Monday with a calendar already full of high-profile clashes, including two cases that could end the use of race in college admissions. Featuring: Clarence Thomas Where: Washington, District of Columbia, United States When: 07 Oct 2022 Credit: Eric Lee/POOL/CNP/startraksphoto.com/Cover Images
-
- Justices of the United States Supreme Court during a formal group photograph at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, Oct. 7, 2022. The court opened its new term Monday with a calendar already full of high-profile clashes, including two cases that could end the use of race in college admissions. Featuring: Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas Where: Washington, District of Columbia, United States When: 07 Oct 2022 Credit: Eric Lee/POOL/CNP/startraksphoto.com/Cover Images
Kind of amusing on all sides because you know some of the justices were looking for any way possible to rule for banning the drug.
Interesting that they heard this case and then ruled,”Oh, these people don’t have standing to sue.” But they knew that when they agreed to hear the case. My cynical theory is that they totally intended to side with the plaintiffs, standing be damned, when they took the case. Since then, it’s become obvious that reproductive rights cases are cryptonite for Republicans. So, now they’re kicking the can down the road till after the election and hoping that Trump is elected and makes any objections mute and futile.
My theory is that they give an easy ruling that they know they can rule again on when the republicans find someone with standing and they do it right before they are going to announce a different ruling that is really bad, like trump does have immunity or some other bulls*t.
It’s not uncommon for the Supreme Court to decide cases on standing, because standing can be a very important issue for some of the cases that come before it. People just want to sue because they don’t like something but that’s not how the law works, as SCOTUS reminds the anti-abortion groups here.
But often in subsequent lawsuits the standing issue is fixed and then the court gets to the merits, which is what I think will happen here. Probably in a year or two we’ll get a ruling banning it.
@Becks1: don’t they usually refuse to even hear the case because plaintiffs lack standing? That’s why I thought this ruling was so strange. They actually took important time to hear the case. Then they ruled that plaintiffs lack standing which they surely knew before agreeing to hear the case. I think that was weird.
This ruling is to help Trump win. They will ban it next year, regardless of who wins the presidential.
And don’t be fooled by the “standing” issue. They didn’t give a crap about standing in the 303 Creative ruling.
Hmm, interesting theory.
@BrassyRebel sometimes they’ll refuse to hear the case if there’s no standing, but sometimes standing is one of the things being decided. And sometimes they use it to get around issuing a ruling on the merits. But in itself, its not like this is the first time this has happened with the court.
Thanks, Becks. I get it now. I think this was a case of avoiding a ruling on the merits. As I said in my original comment, they took the case, then realized it was cryptonite in an election year and decided to live to fight another day—a non-election year day.
In Alito’s comments he gave a road map (in hypotheticals) as to how they could hear the case with standing. This is how Roe v Wade was overturned. It’s only a very temporary stopgap. I predict within a week an action will be filed, following this road map, which will result in the banning of the drug.
They will not ban it before the election. That’s why they suddenly discovered that these plaintiffs lack standing.
This is why I got my tubes tied last year. I knew that I never wanted kids and since my state rushed to pass a heartbeat bill after roe v wade, I wasn’t taking any chances. I’m also so lucky when I told my doctor I wanted the procedure, he immediately opened his calendar and said let’s look at possible surgery dates.
It’s ridiculous that we’re having these discussions again. We’d never police men’s bodies like this
I was afraid of that.
Not this time they weren’t. They needed to have cover during an election year. If Trump wins all bets are off and all Project 2025 dreams of theirs are in.
They think this will help them win the election. They know they will then pass national bans and laws dealing with every reproductive issue on their hateful little wish list.
⬆️This. Those scum buckets have realized that it’s not a good idea to piss off (whichever demographic of) R women in an election year. They were shocked at how many women actually do want access to gynecological healthcare beyond pregnancy. This is a way of making those voters feel more comfortable voting for people who will remove that healthcare at a later date.
Yeah – they know that the majority of Americans from all political spectrums want access to reproductive healthcare that includes abortions. I hope people see this for what it is as once the election is over it the decision could be appealed and then they will ban it.
Am not American but there needs to be some impeaching done with this lot.
American here. There’s no way to impeach “this lot” as long as there are Republicans in power in any capacity. Couldn’t impeach Trump after two tries.
Exactly @mina
Vote, folks. That’s all. And sign petitions to investigate SCOTUS. The US deserves better. Democracy is slipping, so if you hear these are the most important elections so far, you better believe it.
correct. Kavanaugh even said in his statement that there were other avenues under which they would reconsider….after the election of course. Either way. if Trump gets in, national ban, easy peasy. if Biden stays, they will ban Mifepristone.
maisie, well, they’ll ban it if there is still a majority of hard rightwingers on the bench. I think we’re going to see Senate hearings on the justices who lied during their confirmation hearings, and the justices who have been bought (might be all five of them). Biden will likely add positions on the Court–we now have 13 circuits in the US, so we may end up with 13 justices.
Lot’s will be done. Stay tuned for a couple of years. I anticipate that there will be new rulings in the cases that these bought and paid for justices overturned.
They should never have been appointed for life. THAT needs to end. Thomas needs to go ASAP. PBS had a wonderful documentary on him and it paints a wonderful picture on how he should never been appoint and how corrupt this man. I have friends that are state level employees and need to disclose stocks and properties if they deal with proposals for business AND they most certainly would be fired if they received gifts. Why are these judges treated any differently. I would go into my “ethical standards” diatribe when it come to them and elected officials, but they have none nor do they know what they mean.
Any one of these justices could be “called home” in the next few years, we just don’t know. The White House and the Senate are critical. A return to Trump or a GOP majority in the Senate would make The Handmaid’s Tale look like a pleasure cruise. Please everyone vote.
It feels like the USA is the early stages of becoming Gilead from the “The Handmaid’s tale”. If this country gets overtaken by the radical Evangelical nuts as it happens in the famous book by Margaret Atwood. I always ask myself what role every will every person take or be given? I am going to be hung on the wall for being a gender traitor. What about the rest of you? Are you going to become wives, Aunts, Marthas, Handmaids, or Jezebels? The worst fate by far is Handmaid, Martha, or to be sent to the colonies.
This is exactly why I cannot read the book. I have tried but it hits too close to home and I can’t unsee it.
Same. I have friends who can’t believe I refused to watch the show, but I prefer my entertainment to help me escape reality.
I read the book in high school and then for some foolish reason reread it in early 2016. I woke up the morning after the election frozen in fear. I’m grateful for the Hulu show (which I can’t watch) because everyone knows what Gilead is now. Not just the few who’ve read the book see what’s coming.
I read it in high school (and did reports on Margaret Sanger) in high school 30 plus years ago in what has become one of the most backwards, restrictive states. It all has literally come true. I thought it was fiction and impossible back then. Vote blue across the board.
“The biggest threat to America today is not communism, it’s moving America toward a fascist theocracy, and everything that’s happened during the Regan administration is steering us right down that pipe.” — Frank Zappa, 1986
When Frank Zappa tells you who the Republicans are, believe him the first time.
I cannot stand listening to older white men at work say that Regan was the greatest president of the modern era. It grates on my mental stability.
Apparently congress voted last week to not protect contraceptive rights and this week to not protect IVF access? Didn’t even hear about it until a friend mentioned it today in passing. Well, there were votes to protect those things and they failed because of GOP. I think that should be more widespread knowledge!
The media in this country is useless.
The media in this country is trying to get Trump elected. “Donald Trump made a triumphant return to Capitol Hill on Thursday, his first with lawmakers since the January 6th, 2021 attacks, embraced by energized House and Senate Republicans who find themselves reinvigorated by his bid to retake the White House” is an honest to god headline by the AP yesterday.
All of the “both sides” all of the “Biden is old” all of the breathless coverage of the Palestine protestors as if to drive home that Biden is being abandoned by young voters – it’s all a part of an orchestrated drive to put Trump and the GOP back in power.
I don’t think young voters are that stupid.
The thing about IVF though is that while it rightfully should be linked to abortion is that wingnuts don’t necessarily oppose IVF. Some depend on it to grow their broods, so it’s possibly the issue that transcends the political chasm. Do right wing women really want to lose their access to IVF?
IVF is seen as elitist and considered along the same lines as abortion among the wingers pushing this agenda. The states that banned abortion already had foster care systems on the brink that are now in full blown crisis. The wingnut logic is to force people to adopt and not use their “privilege” to have kids of their own.
Thanks, TN. I really didn’t understand the elitist perspective. I thought wingnuts wanted babies anyway possible, cuz souls being brought to earth or something something.
I don’t begin to understand how financially struggling red states will handle the additional pressure on the foster care system.
#ExpandTheCourt
DC Statehood!
Good but a big meh. This is only because pharma has huuuge lobbying power. They make so much money off these pills!
What we really need to look for is Republicans trying to make the practice illegal altogether (or place severe restrictions on women who want/need it, which has already started happening) not just the methodology.
Crazy how often big pharma is accidentally on the progressive side these days. Oh they’ll treat cancer as a cash cow till the end of days, but vaccines and reproductive care are bizarrely a left wing conspiracy they’re in league with.
Vaccines were funded because rich people don’t like to die young or at all and they knew vaccines worked.
Sometimes capitalism and human needs align nicely. Never gonna forget to see big pharma for what it is though. The Sacklers are only unique cuz they got caught.
Big pharma would just shift over to pills that make women more fertile if the contraceptives get banned in the GOP theocracy.
It’s insane that Biden isn’t winning polls in big numbers because women already can’t control their own bodies in some states and it will be all American women if Trump gets in. Already the Supreme Court is lost until Thomas and alito leave the court.
This was only ever a standing argument which doesn’t really mean anything long term because there is already another case with better claimants waiting in the mid west to be heard by one of the crazy Trump judges.
Nic919, I don’t believe polls. I think this year the GOP/MAGA is going to find out that women are p!ssed. It will be women, and the men who support women’s healthcare and rights, who will win the elections this year. I’m leaning toward thinking Dems will get the House & Senate and Presidency. There’s a LOT of work ahead and I it’ll take more than one terms to get it done.
The old patriarchy are fighting hard to stay on top, and women are not going to let them. They REALLY underestimated their target.
While I don’t disagree with anything anyone is saying about the political calculations of the right-wing members of the court, as a lawyer, this was absolutely the right and in fact necessary ground on which to make this decision. The district court’s holding that a group of medical professionals who neither suffered any injury themselves nor were in imminent risk of suffering an injury had standing to sue because some women might possibly someday experience negative effects from a mifepristone-induced abortion, and they would feel bad about it (which essentially was the theory), was an extraordinarily dangerous precedent that needed to be nipped in the bud.
It’s certainly true that the Supreme Court often will try to find the narrowest possible way to decide a case, and standing can be that route, but this was not your usual standing situation. I was very concerned that this exact same theory would be used with respect to gender-affirming care and found this decision to be a huge relief.
CB224, I agree (I’m a retired paralegal) that this was the correct decision. Unfortunately, I also believe that if this was not an election year SCOTUS would have ruled against the drug. I used to have a lot of respect for SCOTUS. I now have none. They are legislating from the bench. They are completely ignoring the Constitution and precedence and creating their own reality. They have left me with nothing to respect.
Hey – can we update the header photo? Justice Brown Jackson has been on the court for more than two years.