Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

May 18th, 2023:

Fifth Circuit hears mifepristone appeal

It went more or less as you’d expect from this dumpster fire of a court. I’ll link to a bunch of straight news coverage in a bit, but what you need is the news with some analysis and snark, so here you go. First, from TPM.

A panel of 5th Circuit Court of Appeals judges — all Republican appointees — unapologetically carried water for the anti-abortion litigants Wednesday during oral arguments in a case where those litigants are trying to get an abortion pill, mifepristone, yanked from the market.

“When we celebrated Mother’s Day, did we celebrate an illness?” Judge James Ho, a Donald Trump appointee, snarked, regurgitating a false argument by the anti-abortion doctor plaintiffs that the Food and Drug Administration classified pregnancy as an illness to rush mifepristone through the approval process.

But perhaps the comedic peak of the arguments came when George W. Bush appointee Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod took time out to scold the lawyer for Danco, a manufacturer of mifepristone, for criticizing Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, the anti-abortion district court judge that handed down the first ruling in the case. Kacsmaryk’s ruling has been widely panned, including by his fellow judges, as the latest in a series of nakedly partisan decisions.

“Your filings have been excellent, however I am concerned about some rather unusual remarks in the filings — these are remarks we don’t normally see in briefing from very esteemed counsel that talk about the district court,” Elrod said, affecting a dramatic tone to read phrases including that the district court “defied long-standing precedent” and that the court’s injunction was “an unprecedented judicial assault.”

“I’m wondering if you would have had more time and not been under a rush and probably exhausted from this whole process, would those have been statements that would have been included in your brief?” she asked.

When Danco’s lawyer pushed back, saying that the language reflected the unprecedented nature of the case, Elrod took an incredulous tone: “So you think it’s appropriate to attack the district court personally in the case in that way.” Ho soon jumped in to continue the beratement.

The three-judge panel, rounded out by Trump appointee Judge Cory Wilson, left little mystery as to how it will ultimately rule. The judges asked questions premised on the myth that mifepristone is sending floods of women to the emergency room, prompting the Department of Justice lawyer to frequently remind the judges that the drug is incredibly safe. Ho railed against the FDA, listing a series of supposed errors it made unrelated to the abortion case, seemingly to make the case that judges should overturn its experts’ decisions.

And here’s Slate.

Nothing these intellectual Lilliputians do will even matter. The Supreme Court has already decided that the 5th Circuit cannot be trusted with this case: In April, it froze the court’s previous decision stringently limiting access to mifepristone, expressly maintaining the freeze until the justices themselves take further action. Elrod, Ho, and Wilson are howling into the wind; they have no power to change a thing about federal regulation of medication abortion. The adults in the room have already put them in time-out. And rather than demonstrate that they can judge responsibly, they seized on Wednesday’s hearing to throw a combination temper tantrum/gaslight party. No lessons have been learned, no maturity acquired. This time-out probably isn’t ending anytime soon.

[…]

Sarah Harrington (for the FDA) and Jessica Ellsworth (for Danco) did an amazing job handling a comically hostile bench. But what was the point? Nobody seriously expects these robed ideologues to do their job with a modicum of integrity. Here are a few lowlights of the hearing:

•Ho credulously repeated the plaintiffs’ false claim that the FDA smuggled through mifepristone by calling pregnancy a “life-threatening illness.” (This argument rests on the lie that mifepristone went through “expedited review,” which Ho also parroted.) He asked Harrington angrily: “When we celebrated Mother’s Day, did we celebrate an illness?”

•Elrod, with evident exasperation, castigated the FDA for failing to produce a complete administrative record for the case—which, as Harrington explained, would require lawyers to compile for the court “hundreds of thousands of pages” going back to the 1990s. In response, Elrod suggested that the government was unscrupulously keeping it “a secret.”

•Wilson asserted that, by allowing medical professionals other than doctors to prescribe mifepristone, the FDA made it “much more likely” that patients will need emergency care, including surgery. (He literally just made this up.)

•Elrod suggested that Danco Laboratories should spend countless hours and resources to prepare for a judicial imposition of draconian restrictions on mifepristone just in case the court chose to do so, dismissing any costs as a minor “inconvenience.” (This, of course, completely ignored the Supreme Court’s order, which freed the defendants from this very obligation.) She also suggested, without evidence, that Danco may be complicit in smuggling the pills into states where they are banned.

•Ho read aloud random people’s criticisms of the FDA and made Ellsworth respond to them, then declared that federal courts should override the FDA’s scientific determinations because the agency isn’t trustworthy.

•Elrod chastised Ellsworth for calling Kascmaryk’s decision an “unprecedented judicial assault” in her brief, calling the rhetoric “far outside the bounds of established [criticism]” and a “personal attack” on Kacsmaryk. She then asked Ellsworth to retract the statements and apologize.

These are not serious people. This is not how real judges conduct themselves. This was barely a judicial proceeding. It was a struggle session in which three anti-abortion zealots yelled at attorneys who have already prevailed in this case once at the Supreme Court. Their rage should have been aimed at SCOTUS, but it’s not a good look for lower courts to trash-talk their superiors, so they redirected it to Harrington and Ellsworth instead.

We’ll find out soon enough, I guess. It’s going to be yet another bumpy ride. The Trib, the NYT, CNN, and Courthouse News have more, with a nice bit of live tweeting from Raffin Melkonian if you still need more.

Mayor Turner’s final budget

This is what he’s handing off.

Mayor Sylvester Turner

Mayor Sylvester Turner will unveil a $6.2 billion budget proposal this week, the final spending plan of his tenure and one he predicts will have enough savings to cover his successor’s first budget gap.

The budget plan includes previously announced pay raises for all city workers, continues the mayor’s plans to address crime and illegal dumping, and adds another $11.3 million toward the city’s backlog of deferred maintenance. It also includes a stark increase in tax dollars for “Build Houston Forward,” the city’s streets and drainage program, jumping from $77 million this year to $123 million next fiscal year.

Perhaps most notably, though, it would sock away $401 million in savings, $220 million above the required reserve of 7.5 percent of the general fund’s expenditures. That, essentially, matches the latest estimate for what the city will have saved at the end of this fiscal year, and it marks the largest reserve in decades at City Hall.

“This represents the strongest fund balance in recent history for a proposed budget,” Turner wrote in his message accompanying the budget. “Additionally, the budget fully funds the Budget Stabilization Fund representing more than $20 million and does not include any deferrals, one-time land sales, or fund balance drawdown.”

[…]

Houston typically operates at a structural deficit with expenses growing faster than revenues, and it must close annual budget gaps with stop-gap measures. As in the last three years, this year’s spending plan would rely heavily on federal COVID-19 relief money to avoid that fate.

The Fiscal 2024 budget, which would take effect July 1, would use $160 million in funds from the American Rescue Plan Act. The city received more than $1 billion in aid from the federal government during the last three years, money that has helped it avoid “significant” service cuts and layoffs, Turner wrote.

The city’s financial outlook likely will be a hot topic during this year’s mayoral race. Previous forecasts have called for deficits of between $114 million and $268 million during the next mayor’s first term, as the city weans itself off federal assistance. The city has spent $344 million of the $607 million it received from the American Rescue Plan Act, as of March 31.

That would leave the city with roughly $263 million left before the adoption of this year’s budget, and about $103 million if the fiscal 2024 budget is adopted as drafted. Cities must obligate the relief money by the end of 2024 and spend it by the end of 2026.

As part of his message, Turner argued the strong fund balance would give his successor breathing room when crafting next year’s budget.

“As we look ahead, strong financial management will need to continue,” Turner wrote. “The city of Houston operates under one of the country’s most restrictive property revenue caps — in addition to complying with the State of Texas revenue cap, and the pressure of inflation. Despite those challenges, the financial health of the city is much stronger than existed on January 1, 2016. Any gap that may exist in FY2025 can be full covered by the fund balance.”

Turner was referring to Houston’s voter-approved revenue cap, which limits yearly growth in property tax receipts to a combination of population and inflation growth or 4.5 percent, whichever is lower. The city has cut its tax rate eight of the last nine years to comply with that restriction, foregoing about $1.5 billion in revenue since Fiscal Year 2015 through last year. In that time, it has saved the median homeowner roughly $946.

You can see more details and video from the press conference on Tuesday here. You know my opinion of the idiotic budget cap already, so I won’t belabor that except to say the next opportunity to have a referendum to amend or repeal it will likely be 2026. Hope the next Mayor can hold out till then. I expect we’ll hear a lot about the city’s current and future financial position as the campaign progresses. There will be budget hearings in the coming weeks, and vote on the budget by Council in June.

No Paxton settlement money in the budget

The Lege takes a stand.

A crook any way you look

Texas budget negotiators want to ban Attorney General Ken Paxton from using state funds to pay a $3.3 million whistleblower settlement.

This week, they adopted a provision that would bar the Office of the Attorney General from using state money to pay for any whistleblower lawsuits or claims, according to budget documents and a spokesperson with the Legislative Budget Board. The language could still change and ultimately needs sign-off from the Legislature and Gov. Greg Abbott to become law.

The settlement is a hot topic this session as some GOP leaders balked at using taxpayer dollars to foot the bill. A rejection of the funds could send Paxton’s agency back to court with four former staffers who sued, alleging they were fired after accusing the Republican of bribery and abuse of office.

Paxton’s agency did not respond to a request for comment. Neither did Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, and Rep. Greg Bonnen, R-Friendswood, who chair the legislative budget committees. The legislative session ends on Memorial Day.

Late Tuesday, attorneys for the whistleblowers wrote to the budget negotiators calling the proposal “disastrous public policy” that would “unfairly punish our clients.”

The state whistleblower act gives public employees who report corruption a safety net, and barring funding of the settlement would “give office holders a license to break the law,” the lawyers wrote on behalf of former top agency employees James “Blake” Brickman, Mark Penley, David Maxwell and Ryan Vassar.

The attorneys added that other government workers would not “risk their financial livelihood to report corruption if the Legislature hangs our clients out to dry.”

[…]

The budget provision’s consequences could be far more sweeping than this one case if they are adopted, an expert said.

Blocking the ability of a state agency to pay whistleblower lawsuits could discourage its employees from reporting alleged wrongdoing, said Michael P. Maslanka, an associate professor at the University of North Texas Dallas College of Law.

And by limiting the restriction to just one agency, the whistleblowers’ attorneys might even be able to sue the Legislature for infringing on their constitutional right to equal protection under the law, he added.

See here, here, here, and here for the backgound. Gotta say, I thought the Lege would fold on this, because when have any Republicans ever held Ken Paxton accountable for anything? Yet here we are, and I’m glad to see it. I will say again, for the umpteenth time, the fact that the budget doesn’t have money specifically earmarked for this settlement doesn’t mean Ken Paxton and the AG’s office can’t pay it. He can just take it out of the amount that has been appropriated for that office, and deal with whatever shortfalls it creates. I get the whistleblowers’ frustration, I really do. I just see this as the way to inflict some actual pain on Paxton. He deserves it. Reform Austin has more.