Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

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.

Countersuit in the “wrongful death” abortion saga

May 3rd, 2023

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Wild.

A man who is suing his ex-wife’s friends for allegedly helping her get an abortion may have known about her plans and done nothing to stop her, according to a new legal filing.

Marcus Silva brought a wrongful-death lawsuit in March in Galveston County, claiming three women helped his now-ex-wife obtain abortion-inducing medication and “conceal the pregnancy and murder from Marcus, the father of the unborn child.”

The lawsuit is the first of its kind since the overturn of Roe v. Wade last summer. Silva is seeking a million dollars in damages from each plaintiff.

But now, Jackie Noyola and Amy Carpenter, two of the women accused of facilitating the abortion, are countersuing Silva, claiming that he found the medication and text messages laying out their plans before his ex-wife underwent the abortion.

“Rather than talking with [his ex-wife] about what he found or disposing of the pill, Silva took photos of the texts and surreptitiously put the pill back,” the lawsuit reads. “He wasn’t interested in stopping her from terminating a possible pregnancy. Instead, he wanted to obtain evidence he could use against her if she refused to stay under his control, which is precisely what he tried to do.”

The countersuit contains a screenshot of a police report Silva allegedly made to the League City Police Department on July 17, claiming he found a pill labeled MF in his ex-wife’s purse almost a week prior. He identified the pill as mifepristone, a common abortion-inducing medication.

It’s not clear what became of the police report, but the legal filings seem to agree Silva’s ex-wife took the medication, intending to terminate her pregnancy. Silva confronted her two weeks later, the lawsuit says, and told her he knew about the abortion.

He threatened to use the screenshots and evidence he had gathered to have her sent to jail if she didn’t “give him my ‘mind body and soul’ until the end of the divorce, which he’s going to drag out,” she wrote in text messages to Noyola and Carpenter. She said Silva was asking her to sell the house, give him primary custody of the children and “basically [play] wife.”

Texas law does not allow criminal or civil charges to be brought against the pregnant patient who undergoes the abortion; Silva’s ex-wife is not a party to the lawsuit.

Noyola and Carpenter are countersuing Silva for violating their right to privacy and the Texas Harmful Access by Computer Act, which makes it a crime to access a computer without the consent of the owner. They note that if there is a violation of the state’s abortion laws, Silva is as responsible as anyone, since he knew about the medication and did nothing to stop it.

“The hypocrisy of Silva seeking more than a million dollars in damages is as shocking as it is shameful,” the filing says. “It is a craven misuse and abuse of the judicial system to facilitate his ongoing harassment and abuse of his ex-wife.”

[…]

If this case proceeds, the countersuit filing raises several potentially important legal arguments about how and when Texas’ intersecting abortion laws can be enforced. One argument centers on the laws’ exemption from legal liability for the pregnant patient.

“It is not illegal or wrongful for a woman to terminate her own pregnancy,” the suit says. And thus, the lawyers argue “it is not illegal or wrongful to help a friend do something she is legally permitted to do … Nor should it be.”

See here for the background and here for a copy of the countersuit, helpfully annotated on Twitter by Mark Joseph Stern. I have no idea what the legal terrain of this one will be, but I feel reasonably confident saying that it will ultimately be about more than just whether Marcus Silva snooped on his ex-wife’s computer. I’ll wait to hear from legal experts about what all that might mean. The Chron, which notes that the two women are represented by Rusty Hardin, and the Texas Signal have more.

Konnech withdraws its lawsuit against True the Vote

Apr 29th, 2023

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Something strange is going on.

An election management software company withdrew a lawsuit last week that accused a Houston-based conservative nonprofit of making slanderous statements about the software company’s work during the 2020 election. The company reserved the right to refile the federal case at a later date.

The suit had a brief and tumultuous history on the Houston docket. In late October, True the Vote leaders testified that they had learned concerning information about the software company from FBI agents. The federal judge pressed the conservative leaders to disclose more of the details of their accusations. He then held the founder and a contractor for the conservative group in contempt and ordered them to serve time in jail. Then in February, the federal judge recused himself.

On April 19, Konnech Inc., a Michigan-based company specializing in election logistic software, asked the newly assigned judge to dismiss the case “without prejudice” against True the Vote. The company is also withdrawing its case against Catherine Engelbrecht, the organization’s founder, and contractor Gregg Phillips, according to court documents.

The Sept. 12 suit came in response to Engelbrecht’s and Phillips’ accusation that Konnech had allowed the Chinese government to access a server in China that held the personal information — including Social Security numbers, phone numbers, bank account numbers and addresses — of nearly 2 million U.S. election workers. True the Vote’s “unique brand of racism and xenophobia” had defamed Konnech and its founder, Eugene Yu, the lawsuit said.

See here for the background. Note that this means that Konnech could re-file its lawsuits at a later date. The question is why they did this. TTV is touting this as a big victory for themselves, and it might end up that way, if the reason for the withdrawal was that Konnech decided they couldn’t win. If they do refile we may get some clue about this, but if not we may never know. At this point, I got nothing.

DOJ sues Tennessee over its ban on gender affirming care for minors

Apr 28th, 2023

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

There will be more of these to come, including and especially in Texas.

The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging Tennessee’s recently passed law that bans gender-affirming care for minors, emphasizing it “denies necessary medical care to youth based solely on who they are.”

The DOJ argues that the bill, known as SB 1, violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, discriminating against individuals on the basis of sex and transgender status, according to the complaint.

“By denying only transgender youth access to these forms of medically necessary care while allowing non-transgender minors access to the same or similar procedures, SB 1 discriminates against transgender youth,” a DOJ press release said.

The Justice Department has asked the court to issue an immediate order to block the Tennessee law from taking effect on July 1.

“No person should be denied access to necessary medical care just because of their transgender status,” Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said in a statement. “The right to consider your health and medically-approved treatment options with your family and doctors is a right that everyone should have, including transgender children, who are especially vulnerable to serious risks of depression, anxiety and suicide. The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department will continue to aggressively challenge all forms of discrimination and unlawful barriers faced by the LGBTQI+ community.”

SB 1 — which was signed into law last month by Republican Gov. Bill Lee — prohibits health care providers from prescribing medications, like puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors who identify as transgender or nonbinary, or performing surgeries and medical procedures “if the performance or administration of the procedure is for the purpose of enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.”

Health care providers who violate the ban could be sued by the state attorney general or private parties, according to the new law.

[…]

Last week, three transgender children and their families also sued Tennessee, claiming “the law violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause because it allows the banned medical treatments when they are used to treat conditions other than gender dysphoria.”

There’s a copy of the DOJ complaint embedded in the story. More than a dozen states have passed laws like this already, and Texas will do the same, or possibly something worse, in the near future. A likely scenario for when a lawsuit is filed against Texas’ future law is that a federal district court judge issues a temporary restraining order against it pending a ruling on the merits, and the Fifth Circuit lifts that to allow the law to be enforced. On the also-likely assumption that a different federal appeals court upholds a ruling against another state’s law, this will be on the SCOTUS docket in, I don’t know, a year or so. And then we’ll find out, as I said before, whether there’s still such a thing as civil rights in this country any more. I’ll keep an eye on it as we go.

SCOTUS halts the anti-mifepristone ruling

Apr 22nd, 2023

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Good.

The Supreme Court ruled Friday to pause lower court rulings that would have imposed restrictions on mifepristone, keeping the drug accessible while the case proceeds.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas would not have granted the stay.

Despite the fact that the initial lawsuit rested on dubious standing grounds and was infused with anti-abortion myths, it was strategically placed to travel through a circuit of notoriously right-wing courts up to the far-right Supreme Court.

Even those pounding the alarm about the dangers this case would pose to the Food and Drug Administration’s functioning, drug approval process and the whole pharmaceutical industry harbored doubts that the Court wouldn’t take any opportunity to further restrict abortion rights.

But the widely panned lower court rulings proved a bridge too far even for the Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade.

In his dissent, Alito reels off a series of critiques lodged against the conservative majority for using the shadow docket to hand down rulings with no explanation.

“I did not agree with these criticisms at the time, but if they were warranted in the cases in which they were made, they are emphatically true here,” he huffs. “As narrowed by the Court of Appeals, the stay that would apply if we failed to broaden it would not remove mifepristone from the market.”

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision, at the least, would nix the FDA’s approval of generic mifepristone, potentially taking it off the market.

He then argues that nothing the court says really matters, since the FDA has enforcement discretion in which drugs to target.

“The FDA has previously invoked enforcement discretion to permit the distribution of mifepristone in a way that the regulations then in force prohibited, and here, the Government has not dispelled legitimate doubts that it would even obey an unfavorable order in these cases, much less that it would choose to take enforcement actions to which it has strong objections,” he writes.

[…]

The case will now proceed at the Fifth Circuit, which still has to rule on the merits. It’s on an expedited timeline there, with briefs due throughout May. The timing for a final decision from the appeals court is still uncertain; a likely return to the Supreme Court could come after that. The high court said the stay would remain in place until it either refused to take the case or issued a final ruling.

An initial 5th Circuit panel gave the anti-abortion group a favorable ruling, upholding challenges to mifepristone that the FDA had lifted in recent years and potentially removing the FDA approval of generic mifepristone altogether.

A coalition of blue states joined the docket, pointing out that any restriction of mifepristone enforced nationwide would impinge on their rights as states to determine their own abortion regimes — something the Supreme Court claimed was its intention in Dobbs.

See here for the previous update, and there’s a copy of the ruling at the link above. It must be emphasized that this is just putting the lower court ruling on hold while the appeals process plays out. In the end, the Fifth Circuit could rule as it did in partly staying the order, thus taking away mifepristone by mail and other things, on the same lack of evidence and hostility to the idea of abortion, with some unsubtle hints about the Comstock Act. And then SCOTUS could do whatever it wants to do, with some kind of “middle ground” between the completely lawless Kacsmaryk ruling and a full overturn as the goal. We are very much not out of danger. But at least for now, and probably until early next year when the SCOTUS ruling would be likely to be handed down, we’re back at the original status quo. That’s something. TPR, the Trib, Mother Jones, Vox, and Slate have more.

Anti-mifepristone order still paused

Apr 20th, 2023

by Charles Kuffner.

1 comment

SCOTUS needs a couple more days.

The Supreme Court extended its stay on lower court rulings on mifepristone until Friday just before midnight, meaning that the drug will remain accessible and available at least until then.

The order, written by Justice Samuel Alito, came “upon further consideration of the application of counsel for the applicants, the response and the reply.”

The Court’s initial stay would have expired just before midnight Wednesday, bringing restrictions to the drug into action.

[…]

While the Supreme Court mulls the case, action hasn’t stopped in the lower courts. In a new, separate lawsuit, the maker of generic mifepristone sued the FDA Wednesday to not revoke its approval or take it off the market without going through the mandated processes, including the Heath and Human Services Secretary declaring that the drug is an imminent risk. The company, GenBioPro, argues that court rulings don’t trump the required steps the agency has to take to remove its approval.

See here for the previous update. I didn’t see any speculation about What It All Means in the news coverage I read, but we do still have Twitter for some things:

At most, this development *maybe* tilts the odds *marginally* more in favor of a stay pending appeal (else why extend the administrative stay).

But I don’t think extending the administrative stay changes the bottom-line probabilities in any material respect.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) 2:32 PM – 19 April 2023

Yes, it’s very unusual for a Justice to extend an administrative stay—but Alito is the *only* Justice who regularly puts deadlines on them in the first place. For most of the Justices, administrative stays are indefinite, so never need to be “extended.”

Uniformity would be nice.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) 3:39 PM – 19 April 2023

Pessimistic take: The court denied a stay and a liberal is writing a dissent.

Optimistic take: The court granted a stay and a conservative is writing a dissent.

Panglossian take: The court is writing an opinion reversing the 5th Circuit and directing it to toss the case.

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) 2:19 PM – 19 April 2023

Make of that what you will. In the meantime, there’s that other case that was just filed.

GenBioPro, the maker of generic mifepristone, made a bid to establish a backstop Wednesday, should the Supreme Court decide to restrict one of its primary products.

The company sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in federal court in Maryland, seeking assurances that the agency wouldn’t revoke its approval or try to remove it from the market.

This lawsuit, while separate, flows from the chain that started with Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas. That case is currently at the Supreme Court, which is due to hand down a ruling in the case, but which extended its stay on the lower court opinions until Friday just before midnight. As it stands, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to reimpose restrictions on the drug that the FDA had lifted in recent years — and to nix the agency’s 2019 approval of generic mifepristone altogether.

While that case unspooled, GenBioPro, per its Wednesday filing, has been deluging the FDA with letters in an attempt to make sure that its product won’t be yanked off the market. After getting unsatisfactory responses, the company turned to the government’s filings in the case, where it warned that “[t]he generic version of the drug would cease to be approved altogether.”

Now, the company is arguing that the FDA is prepared to illegally revoke its approval without going through the proper steps: A finding by the Heath and Human Services Secretary that the drug is an “imminent hazard” and an expedited hearing once the drug is suspended. These unprecedented court orders, GenBioPro argues, don’t trump the congressionally-delegated processes the FDA must follow to remove its product from the market.

“With the specter of criminal prosecution looming, GenBioPro may be obligated to undertake recalls, cancel contracted manufacturing and hold or destroy perishable inventory,” the company’s lawyers write. “And because of the FDA Decision and the enforcement risk and uncertainty it has created, GenBioPro is suffering irreparable financial and reputational harm, severely threatening its core business model and commercial viability.”

GenBioPro is asking that the FDA be forbidden from suspending or altering its approval, and from using its enforcement power to take it off the market, unless the agency goes through the established process to revoke the drug’s approval. It makes its arguments under a constellation of laws, including the Fifth Amendment, Administrative Procedure Act and All Writs Act.

This lawsuit is the legal equivalent of breaking glass in case of emergency. GenBioPro has its finger in the wind — and is clearly uncomfortable depending on the Supreme Court to maintain its drug’s accessibility.

Isn’t this fun? The Trib and The 19th have more.

Anti-mifepristone litigants respond to SCOTUS appeal

Apr 19th, 2023

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Today we find out what SCOTUS will do.

The anti-abortion doctors who first brought the case seeking to get mifepristone yanked from the markets filed a reply brief Tuesday, starting the clock on the Supreme Court’s response.

It’s the latest entry in the case that originated in Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s court in Amarillo, Texas. After he ruled to stay the Food and Drug Administration’s 20-year-old approval of mifepristone, the Department of Justice appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit broke from Kacsmaryk on the initial approval (though without much conviction) but upheld challenges to virtually all the changes in the drug’s regulatory scheme since 2016, reimposing a slate of onerous restrictions on mifepristone including significantly cutting how many days into a pregnancy it can be taken on-label and barring the pills from being mailed.

The government, along with a manufacturer of mifepristone, asked the Supreme Court to stay or vacate the Fifth Circuit’s ruling while it appeals that decision. The Supreme Court granted an administrative stay last week, putting those old restrictions on ice for a few more days. That stay expires just before midnight on Wednesday.

One of the toughest barriers the anti-abortion contingent has to scale in convincing the Supreme Court to let the case continue to play out at the Fifth Circuit is the clear conflict between this mifepristone case, and another out of Washington state. There, a federal judge ruled — and reaffirmed — that the FDA needs to keep mifepristone available as usual in the states and district involved. Meanwhile, the Fifth Circuit ruled to bring back the years-old restrictions nationwide.

The anti-abortion group’s lawyers largely claim that the conflict is inconsequential in their Tuesday filing, since the Washington case is still at the district court.

“There is no current circuit split, and there may never be one,” they write. “In particular, the government has not even appealed the decision from the Washington District Court which, to date, is only potentially conflicting.”

The lawyers also minimize the disruption negating years of FDA changes and updates would cause.

“The agency need only go back to its preapproved 2011 regimen and label,” they write, immediately contradicting themselves: “The ‘threat’ of conflicting orders here is also illusory, as the Fifth Circuit’s order does not require FDA to do anything.”

The government has said that adjusting the drug’s labeling alone would take “months,” and that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling would also revoke the agency’s approval of generic mifepristone — which was only granted in 2019; the branded version of Mifeprex was approved in 2000 — permanently.

See here for the previous entry. It is expected that SCOTUS will rule by tonight, because that is when their administrative hold expires. Of interest, via Axios, is that a whole bunch of Republican members of Congress filed an amicus brief on the side of the mifepristone-banners.

Details: The 147 lawmakers, led by Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas), filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to allow the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling reinstating mifepristone’s restrictions to take effect.

[…]

What we’re watching: The handful of signers facing competitive elections in 2024 should expect it to come up in attacks on the campaign trail, two Democratic operatives told Axios.

Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) and Monica De La Cruz (R-Texas) are top targets for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — which blasted Boebert last week for signing the 5th Circuit brief.

Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.) are also seen as potentially vulnerable.

Rep. Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.) is also running to challenge Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), while Reps. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.) and Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) are considering Senate bids against Democratic incumbents.

Meanwhile, 253 Democrats last week filed a brief urging the justices to block the lower court rulings, arguing that Congress has not allowed federal courts “to substitute their judgment for the expert conclusions of FDA’s scientists.”

As before, I appreciate them clarifying the stakes here. And I better see this be a big part of the 2024 campaigns against Cruz and de la Cruz. Either these pro-reproductive choice arguments work here in Texas, or we’ll find out that they don’t and we’ll need to figure it out from there. Slate has more.

SCOTUS pauses that anti-mifepristone ruling

Apr 15th, 2023

by Charles Kuffner.

1 comment

A brief timeout.

The Supreme Court granted the Department of Justice’s emergency request to temporarily halt lower court rulings that would have reimposed restrictions on mifepristone that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had lifted in recent years.

The stay is in place until 11:59 p.m. ET Wednesday. The anti-abortion plaintiffs’ response to the government’s request for a stay is due by noon on Tuesday.

It’s just an administrative stay, temporarily putting the lower court orders on ice until the full Supreme Court can decide on the merits of the case. Without it, the restrictions on mifepristone would have taken effect nationwide on Saturday.

“The idea would just be to keep the ruling on hold until the Supreme Court can take a closer look at the merits and decide whether to issue a longer stay pending appeal,” Jessie Hill, associate dean and professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, told TPM.

The stay does not guarantee that the right-wing bench will ultimately reverse the lower courts.

[…]

If the Supreme Court majority ultimately prioritizes its hostility to abortion access over the standing issues, the FDA may be able to mitigate some of the damage, depending on how it uses its enforcement discretion.

So far, the White House told TPM that it wouldn’t “ignore” the lower court rulings and keep mifepristone on the market as usual, but it’s unclear whether that stance will hold if the administration is defeated at court.

See here for the previous update. This action was widely expected, and doesn’t mean anything about how SCOTUS will ultimately rule. It’s just that SCOTUS had a clear need to intervene, and we’ll know more on Wednesday. So try to put this out of your mind for a few hours and enjoy the weekend. The 19th has more.

Fifth Circuit barely limits ridiculous anti-mifepristone ruling

Apr 14th, 2023

by Charles Kuffner.

1 comment

In other words, the Fifth Circuit did Fifth Circuit things.

The notoriously right-wing Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld much of Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s ruling on mifepristone from late last week in an early Thursday decision that may prompt the Justice Department to seek relief from the Supreme Court.

Kacsmaryk stayed the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) 2000 approval of mifepristone last week based on both anti-abortion myths regarding the dangerousness of the drug, and on near-universally panned contortions of standing and timeliness.

The Fifth Circuit panel broke from Kacsmaryk on rejecting the 2000 FDA approval, saying that the six-year statute of limitations to challenge that agency action has passed (though without much conviction, saying that the anti-abortion plaintiffs may win on that topic at another stage of litigation). But it agreed with Kacsmaryk on nearly everything else.

The panel — comprised of two Donald Trump appointees, and one George W. Bush appointee — would let mifepristone remain on the market with FDA approval, but would reject many of the steps to expand access and lift restrictions that the FDA has taken since 2016. That means that mifepristone would only be available under the previous, much more restrictive regime: allowed to be used only up until 50 days into a pregnancy versus 70, with patients required to have multiple in-person visits with a provider, and the pills not allowed to be mailed. (The Bush appointee said she wanted to grant an administrative stay, and to punt a decision on the stay pending appeal to the argument panel — meaning this decision comes courtesy of the two Trump judges.)

Mifepristone has always been subject to an unusually harsh set of restrictions on its use and prescription, which the medical community has soundly criticized as based in politics and not medical fact.

The Fifth Circuit panel’s ruling is shot through with similar ideological, non-scientific, anti-abortion rhetoric to that which peppers Kacsmaryk’s decision.

“As a result of FDA’s failure to regulate this potent drug, these doctors have had to devote significant time and resources to caring for women experiencing mifepristone’s harmful effects,” the panel writes, a regurgitation of anti-abortion lies about mifepristone being particularly dangerous.

At another point, the panel refers to a fetus as an “unborn child” — a term that is often shorthand for the idea of fetal personhood, the anti-abortion theory that fetuses are essentially just small children with rights under the 14th Amendment, so all abortion is murder.

But the appeals court’s cosigning of Kacsmaryk’s novel interpretations of standing alone will likely be enough for the DOJ to appeal.

See here, here, and here for the background. Some of the coverage I’ve seen has put the focus of the ruling on the injunction against the 2000 approval of mifepristone, which is the one thing the Fifth Circuit stayed. But that really isn’t the main feature of this ruling, it’s the acceptance of so much of Kacsmaryk’s bonkers interpretation of standing as well as his wingnut-infused rejection of the science.

The panel ruled that the challenge to the 2000 approval of mifepristone itself is likely time-barred, so it froze that part of the ruling. But it *didn’t* freeze Kacsmaryk’s block of the 2016 and 2021 revisions that (1) make mifepristone available up to 10 weeks; and (2) by mail.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) 6:34 AM – 13 April 2023

As for what happens next, it seems to me that the FDA and Danco Laboratories still have very good arguments to ask #SCOTUS to freeze Kacsmaryk’s order in full; the majority’s standing, merits, and irreparable harm analyses re: the 2016 and 2021 changes are … not exactly obvious.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) 6:34 AM – 13 April 2023

We’ll see what happens next. The Fifth Circuit froze the craziest, most harmful parts of Kacsmaryk’s ruling, but *its* ruling last night will still significantly *limit* access to mifepristone going forward.

That’s a big deal, but maybe *not* big enough for #SCOTUS to push back.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) 6:34 AM – 13 April 2023

That’s the big picture. You can get more detail here, and Chris Geidner has a good thread here. Remember also, that Washington court ruling, which directly contradicts this one, and which Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern says offers the FDA the perfect opening to just follow what the Washington court ordered, as it “more explicitly obligates the agency to maintain mifepristone access in most states where abortion remains legal”.

This mess is now on SCOTUS’ doorstep, as the Justice Department is seeking emergency relief. I assume they will take action, but we saw how pusillanimous they were with SB8. Unless SCOTUS steps in by the end of the day today, access to mifepristone will be severely curtailed even as the nationwide injunction is put on hold. It’s chaos, it’s a terrible ruling for the pharmaceutical industry, and they have taken notice. We’ll see what comes of that. NBC News, NPR, Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick, Daily Kos, and the Trib have more.

UPDATE: Clarification from Washington:

Judge Thomas Rice in the eastern district of Washington responded Thursday to government lawyers asking how they should comply with contradictory rulings on mifepristone that both came down Friday evening, one of which Rice wrote.

He told them that, regardless of the ruling out of Texas, the government must comply with his order to keep mifepristone available as usual in the 17 states plus Washington D.C. that are part of the case.

“That order is currently stayed and was not in effect at the time of this Court’s preliminary injunction,” he said of Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s ruling, which had stayed the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of mifepristone. Aspects of Kacsmaryk’s ruling were stayed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday morning. “Under these circumstances, because the Court has jurisdiction over the parties before it and limited its preliminary injunction only to the Plaintiff States and the District of Columbia, this Court’s preliminary injunction was effective as of April 7, 2023 and must be followed by Defendants.”

He added that “irrespective of the Northern District of Texas Court ruling or the Fifth Circuit’s anticipated ruling,” defendants are prohibited from “altering the status quo and rights as it relates to the availability of Mifepristone under the current operative January 2023 Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy under 21 U.S.C. § 355-1 in Plaintiff States and the District of Columbia.”

Okay then.

Tuesday mifepristone update

Apr 11th, 2023

by Charles Kuffner.

1 comment

First things first, that lawless ruling from the wingnut Texas judge has been appealed.

The U.S. Justice Department on Monday asked a federal appeals court to keep the abortion pill mifepristone on the U.S. market as litigation plays out, days after a federal judge suspended the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the medication nationwide.

The DOJ asked the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to block U.S. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s unprecedented decision from taking effect. The U.S. government’s lawyers said “there is no basis for extraordinary nationwide relief that would upend a decades-long status quo.”

“If allowed to take effect, that order will irreparably harm patients, healthcare systems, and businesses,” the Justice Department lawyers wrote in a court filing.

Kacsmaryk of the U.S. Northern District of Texas said Friday that his decision to suspend the FDA approval of mifepristone would not go into effect for seven days so mifepristone distributor Danco Laboratories and the Biden administration had time to appeal.

“The Court should immediately extend the administrative stay and then stay the district court’s order pending appeal,” the Justice Department lawyers told the 5th Circuit.

Danco will likely ask the Supreme Court to intervene if the 5th Circuit does not grant the request to halt Kacsmaryk’s decision from taking effect, the company’s attorney Jessica Ellsworth said.

“I anticipate that if the Fifth Circuit does not grant a stay or at least an administrative stay, which is sort of a short term stay so it has time to consider the stay request in an orderly fashion, either Danco and or the United States will ask the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay,” Ellsworth said during a call with reporters on Monday.

When asked whether Danco will stop distributing mifepristone if Kacsmaryk’s decision takes effect this Friday, Ellsworth said the company will consult with the FDA about how to proceed.

“I think there will be some difficult questions that Danco needs to address and some conversations that it will need to have with FDA around what happens next,” Ellsworth said.

See here and here for the background. In theory, there should be an answer soon on this. In the meantime, the Justice Department has also asked for a clarification from the judge who issued the other ruling.

Eastern District of Washington Judge Thomas Rice ruled Friday that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has to maintain the “status quo” in keeping the drug available for the states involved in the case. A coalition of Democratic attorneys general had filed suit to lift some of the long-time restrictions that make mifepristone singularly hard to access, and which the medical community has long opposed as political and not medical in nature.

Minutes before, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk out of the northern district of Texas stayed the FDA’s approval of the drug nationwide (a ruling that will go into effect after a seven-day delay). The two decisions were forced into conflict, and the issue will likely reach the Supreme Court.

On Monday, the government lawyers involved in the Washington case — where they oppose the bid to get the FDA to lift all of mifepristone’s restrictions — asked the judge for clarification.

“The result of that order appears to be in significant tension with this Court’s order prohibiting FDA from ‘altering the status quo and rights as it relates to the availability of Mifepristone’ in Plaintiff States,” the lawyers write of Kacsmaryk’s decision. “The Court did not address the interaction between the two orders, presumably because they were issued less than 20 minutes apart. To ensure that Defendants comply with all court orders in these unusual circumstances, Defendants respectfully request that this Court clarify their obligations under its preliminary injunction in the event that the Alliance order takes effect and stays the approval of mifepristone.”

The technical legal term for this situation is “clusterfuck”. Don’t ask me how I know these things, I just do. As for what the administration may do if the Fifth Circuit does its usual Fifth Circuit bullshit, they say they will not ignore the wingnut ruling despite some calls for them to do so.

“I believe the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to ignore this ruling, which is why I’m again calling on President Biden and the FDA to do just that,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) said Friday. “The FDA, doctors, and pharmacies can and must go about their jobs like nothing has changed and keep mifepristone accessible to women across America. If they don’t, the consequences of banning the most common method of abortion in every single state will be devastating.”

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) recently appealed to the White House to use any tools at its disposal to keep the drug available, including its enforcement discretion. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) also called on the administration to “ignore” the Friday decision.

The White House told TPM Monday that it will not heed those calls.

“No,” a White House spokesperson said, when asked whether it plans to ignore Kacsmaryk’s ruling, and any future decisions upholding it, and have the FDA use its enforcement discretion to leave mifepristone on the market.

“We stand by FDA’s approval of mifepristone, and we are prepared for a long legal fight, if needed,” the spokesperson continued. “The focus of the Administration is on ensuring that we prevail in the courts. There is a process in place for appealing this decision and we will pursue that process vigorously and do everything we can to prevail in the courts.”

It’s in keeping with how members of the administration have talked publicly about the case — emphasizing the judicial procedure, though not talking about what it’ll do if its attempts to go through a series of right-wing courts to retain FDA approval are unsuccessful.

[…]

Major abortion providers made it clear that at least for the duration of Kacsmaryk’s delay, nothing has changed.

“Like we said before — we follow directives from the FDA, and not anti-abortion judges in Texas who lack any formal medical training,” Whole Woman’s Health said in a tweet. “Whole Woman’s Health will continue to dispense Mife in our clinics and our Pills by Mail Program for the next week as we monitor both decisions.”

“Nothing has changed yet: medication abortions with mifepristone are still available,” Trust Women tweeted. “Now, as ever, it’s critically important to support your local abortion funds and clinics, and contact your legislators and demand that mife remains legal health care.”

It should be noted that “not ignoring the wingnut decision” does not mean pulling mifepristone off the shelves:

If the FDA uses its enforcement discretion, what it is doing is recognizing that approval is stayed, not ignoring it. In the face of a drug with stayed approval, the FDA is saying we are assessing what drugs are unsafe and risky, and going after those, not mifepristone. /2

— David S. Cohen (@dsc250) 9:39 AM – 10 April 2023

To be clear, we may get to the point of needing to ignore the court. I’m not against that if extreme situations dictate. But Kacsmaryk did NOT order FDA or Danco to do anything. Making his order into something it isn’t gives him too much power and us, Biden, & FDA too little. /4

— David S. Cohen (@dsc250) 9:42 AM – 10 April 2023

PS. Think of it this way: which is the Biden FDA more likely to do? Ignore a court or use a long-recognized legal option supported by unanimous Supreme Court authority? Language matters here!

— David S. Cohen (@dsc250) 10:00 AM – 10 April 2023

Something to think about. Finally, while it’s highly unlikely to get anywhere, there is a legislative solution out there.

Democratic lawmakers are mobilizing in the wake of the decision in Texas that threw access to the so-called abortion pill into flux Friday, introducing legislation Monday to protect access to the most widely used form of abortion in the U.S.

Reps. Pat Ryan of New York and Lizzie Fletcher of Texas will introduce the Protecting Reproductive Freedom Act on Monday during a pro forma session of the House, seeking to reaffirm the Food and Drug Administration’s final approval authority on medication abortion and continue to allow providers to prescribe the abortion pill via telehealth, which was widely expanded during the coronavirus pandemic.

“The Texas decision has nothing to do with science or medicine and everything to do with radical groups whose only goal is a national abortion ban,” said Ryan, who credits wins in his swing district in New York state in part to his stance on abortion rights. “My priority is protecting abortion access for women in New York and across the country.”

Fletcher, who called her state, Texas, “the epicenter of attacks on the health and freedom of Americans,” said “the unprecedented district court decision, which, if enforced, would be devastating to women and families across our country and to our established drug-approval system.”

It’s yet another move from congressional Democrats to send a message about the issue of reproductive access, despite the unlikelihood that the legislation will ever pass the GOP-controlled House. Nevertheless, Democrats will continue to keep the focus on abortion access — especially after having seen its power across the country in the 2022 midterms.

There’s basically no chance that this bill will see the light of day in the Republican-controlled House. As a messaging effort, it can be effective. Everyone has to make it clear what is being voted on next year. Daily Kos and The 19th have more.

Harris County felony bail bond lawsuit ruling coming

Apr 6th, 2023

by Charles Kuffner.

3 comments

Definitely something to look forward to.

Lawyers on both sides of a lawsuit accusing Harris County of unfair bail practices that unjustly imprison lower-income inmates are pressing for a swift resolution, and a judge says a ruling in the four-year legal battle will come soon.

U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal heard arguments from attorneys representing Johnnie Ray Pierson, Dwight Russell, Joseph Ortuno, Maurice Wilson and Christopher Clack on whether Harris County officials and Sheriff Ed Gonzalez violated the five men’s and other current and former inmates’ rights by putting them behind bars because they couldn’t afford cash bail.

“In this hearing, it became clear that the judge was mostly trying to clear away some of the procedural obstacles that would prevent her from actually addressing what this case is really about,” Cody Cutting, an attorney with the Civil Rights Corps, said on behalf of the men whom he and the nonprofit have represented since 2019. “People are being jailed because they lack money and no other reason.”

Harris County’s, the State of Texas and Gonzalez’s attorneys argued that the enactment of Senate Bill 6 in September 2021 would make the men’s lawsuit “moot” because of legislation allowing any person, including all prisoners, to be eligible for bail unless denial of bail is “expressly permitted” by the Texas Constitution or by other law. The provision doesn’t apply to capital offenses when the burden of proof is evident.

“What SB6 did is require the use of secured money bail, prohibiting unsecured bonds, for people charged with certain categories of offenses,” Cutting said.

A motion in the felony bail challenge asks Rosenthal to rule in favor of all inmates held at the Harris County Jail because they cannot afford the bail amounts set by the court. Lawyers from the Civil Rights Corps, based in Washington, D.C., also argue that local judges’ practices in felony court are unconstitutional.

[…]

The main issue Gonzalez has with the lawsuit is the implementation of the bail practices and whether Rosenthal’s ruling, if in favor of the plaintiffs, will put him in a difficult position in terms of deciding which courts’ orders to comply with, Fogler said.

“The sheriff certainly does not want an overcrowded jail, but that’s what’s happening,” Cutting said. “And what the sheriff has been resisting, is being held responsible for jailing people solely because they lack money.”

See here for the previous update, from over two years ago, and here for a Chron explainer on the lawsuit. This is about felony bail, not misdemeanor, as that issue was settled in 2019 via a different lawsuit. Note that because district court judges are defendants, and district courts are state offices, the Attorney General is defending them, not the County Attorney as was the case with the misdemeanor bail lawsuit. Not sure how much longer we’ll be waiting – that story was from last week, I just hadn’t gotten to it yet. I expect an appeal regardless of the ruling.

Llano County ordered to return books to library shelves

Apr 5th, 2023

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Yes, this is a thing that is happening in the year of our Lord 2023.

Officials in Llano County must return to the public library system books they removed and allow them to be checked out again, a federal judge ruled this week.

The Texas judge is also prohibiting the officials from removing any more books while a lawsuit remains pending.

Seven library patrons last year sued the county judge, commissioners court, library board members and library system for restricting and banning books. They argue in the suit that their First Amendment rights to access and receive ideas had been infringed when officials limited access to certain books based on their content and messages. The county residents also alleged their 14th Amendment right to due process was violated as the books were removed without notice or ability to appeal.

The books included a book for teens that calls the Ku Klux Klan a terrorist group, Isabel Wilkerson’s “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents” and a comedic children’s book with three stories from Dawn McMillan’s “I Need a New Butt!” series.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman wrote in an opinion filed Thursday that the plaintiffs had “clearly met their burden to show that these are content-based restrictions that are unlikely to pass constitutional muster.”

Still, Pitman dismissed part of the suit, which wanted county officials to reinstate the library’s previous system for e-book access.

County officials appealed Pitman’s order reinstating the banned books, according to court filings. None were immediately reached for comment. Their lawyer, former Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell, did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

“The evidence demonstrates that, without an injunction, defendants will continue to make access to the subject books difficult or impossible,” Pitman wrote.

[…]

The books at issue in the suit are “available” for check out but are hidden from view and not in the catalog.

“Their existence is not discernible to the public, nor is their availability,” Pitman wrote.

The county has also created an in-house checkout system, which does not list the books that are supposedly available to be checked out.

“They are, to the extent they exist, not accessible from the library shelves,” Pitman wrote. “A patron must, notwithstanding the fact that the books’ existence is not reflected in the library catalog, know that the books can be requested. They must then make a special request for the book to be retrieved from behind the counter. This is, of course, an obvious and intentional (effort) by defendants to make it difficult if not impossible to access the materials plaintiffs seek.”

The appeal was filed with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

See here for the background. As a reminder, this is happening at the public library, not a school library. Not that it would be any better at a school library, but this is how far the fanatics are going. And yes, the attorney for said fanatics is the same guy who helped design the vigilante bounty hunter anti-abortion law SB8 and who is representing the guy who is suing his ex-wife’s friends for helping her find abortion medication, among many other things. These guys don’t just want to take your reproductive rights away from you, they have a whole lot more on their agenda. And now we get to see what the current level of depravity is at the Fifth Circuit. Hold on tight.

The unhinged abortion pill lawsuit hearing

Mar 16th, 2023

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

What a shitshow.

The future of medication abortion in the United States remains up in the air after a federal judge heard arguments Wednesday in a suit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s long-standing approval of mifepristone.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said he would rule “as soon as possible” on the challenge brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative, anti-abortion law firm.

ADF is asking Kacsmaryk to suspend — and ultimately withdraw — the FDA’s approval of the medication, which would have nationwide implications, especially in states where abortion remains legal. In the hearing, a lawyer for ADF conceded that this would be unprecedented, but argued that the court had the authority to intervene to prevent harm.

Lawyers for the Department of Justice and Danco Laboratories, the pharmaceutical company that produces generic mifepristone, argued that the lawsuit is meritless.

Granting a preliminary injunction would be “depriving patients and doctors of a safe and effective drug,” argued Julie Straus Harris, with the DOJ.

Since it was initially approved in 2000, mifepristone has been found to be overwhelmingly safe and effective for terminating pregnancies. Citing that body of evidence, the FDA has recently relaxed restrictions on the medication, which is used in the majority of the abortions in the United States.

In the suit, ADF is representing anti-abortion medical organizations and doctors who argue they have been harmed by having to treat patients who have experienced adverse effects from the medications — and that they anticipate increased harm as a result of these loosened restrictions.

They also argue the drug was initially approved improperly under an FDA regulation that fast-tracks drugs that treat serious illnesses.

“Pregnancy is not an illness,” said Erik Baptist, a lawyer for ADF, in Wednesday’s hearing. “Mifepristone doesn’t treat anything.”

Kacsmaryk, appearing to give weight to that argument, listed off all the drugs that were approved under this regulation before mifepristone, most of which treat HIV and cancer. Separately, he summarized Baptist’s argument as asking the court to “deem one of these not like the others.”

The hearing, which ran more than four hours in Kacsmaryk’s Amarillo courtroom, covered a wide range of arguments. But the central question before Kacsmaryk is not as much about abortion as it is about administrative procedure — and whether the plaintiffs have any right to bring this lawsuit at all.

See here and here for the background. I can’t overstate how ridiculous this all is, and that includes the extreme restrictions on coverage of the hearing, for which you literally had to be there or at a single courthouse in Dallas, but only a handful of people were allowed at the courtroom, and cellphones were banned, so no live-tweeting. All for a hearing at which one hand-picked judge could severely curtail access to abortion for millions of women across the country, based on vibes. I really hope I’m wrong, but I don’t see anything in the coverage I’ve read to suggest this guy will do anything other than what he clearly wants to do. We’ll find out soon. Jezebel, the Associated Press, Slate, Daily Kos, and NBC News have more.

UPDATE: From Slate, “If Kacsmaryk rewrites the history of mifepristone’s approval as grounds to pull it from the market, his decision should command no respect or acquiescence from anyone—not the FDA, not abortion providers, and certainly not the public at large.”

The hearing for that unhinged abortion pill lawsuit is today

Mar 15th, 2023

by Charles Kuffner.

1 comment

Like I said, brace yourselves.

A federal judge in Texas will hear arguments Wednesday in a closely watched dispute that could halt distribution of a key drug used for medication abortion and disrupt access nationwide, even in states where reproductive rights are protected.

The case before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk was brought in November by a conservative legal organization on behalf of anti-abortion rights medical associations and targets the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decades-old approval of the drug mifepristone, one of two medications used to terminate an early pregnancy.

The associations have requested Kacsmaryk order the FDA to withdraw its 2000 approval of mifepristone, arguing the agency erred when it gave the green-light to the drug under a regulation that allows accelerated approval of medications for “serious or life-threatening illnesses.”

But the Biden administration has warned that such a step would harm patients who rely on abortion pills and further strain state health care systems, particularly in places with clinics already grappling with overcrowding as a result of abortion restrictions in neighboring states.

The parties will have two hours apiece to press their arguments before Kacsmaryk, and the judge laid out a host of issues for them to discuss Wednesday, including whether the associations have the legal standing to sue, whether an injunction would serve the public interest and the regulation under which mifepristone was approved.

Kacsmaryk could issue his decision on the associations’ request for a preliminary injunction any time after the hearing, though a quick appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is expected.

[…]

In papers filed with the court, the anti-abortion rights groups claimed the FDA exceeded its regulatory authority to approve mifepristone and has over the years removed safeguards by changing the dosage and route of administration in 2016, and lifting an in-person dispensing requirement to allow the pills to be mailed in 2021.

“The FDA took these actions by running roughshod over the laws and regulations that govern the agency and, more importantly, protect the public from harmful drugs,” they argued.

The Biden administration countered that the challengers’ request for the court to withdraw approval of mifepristone is “extraordinary and unprecedented.” Administration lawyers said they have been unable to find any case where a court has “second-guessed FDA’s safety and efficacy determination and ordered a widely available FDA-approved drug to be removed from the market — much less an example that includes a two-decade delay.”

Taking aim at the associations’ claim that the FDA improperly accelerated approval of mifepristone without substantial evidence of its safety, Justice Department lawyers noted that the 2000 approval of the drug came more than four years after manufacturer Danco submitted its application.

The drug maker, too, told the court that forcing the FDA to withdraw its long standing approval of mifepristone would not only “seismically disrupt the agency’s governing authority as to whether drugs are safe and effective,” but also put Danco out of business.

“The public has no interest in a hastily cobbled together, and overtly political, attempt by private parties to wrest control of the drug approval process from the United States agency responsible for it — an agency that has acted deliberately, thoughtfully, and consistent with its authorizing statute and implementing regulations,” the company said.

See here for the background. Plenty of legal types have written at length about how specious and flimsy the plaintiffs’ arguments are, and how utterly lacking their claim of standing is, so I’ll just note that and move on. Whether any of that matters to this wingnut judge or not will only be known after his ruling. As for the coverage of this ridiculous lawsuit, TPM among others provided insight:

TPM has obtained, and is first to report, the transcript from the status conference, which was conducted over the phone.

The case centers on the Food and Drug Administration’s 20-year-old approval of mifepristone, a drug often prescribed with misoprostol to induce abortions. Anti-abortion groups are trying to get that approval revoked, which could send the drug’s availability into flux.

After some typical housekeeping, Kacsmaryk leans on the lawyers to keep the hearing quiet.

“Because of limited security resources and staffing, I will ask that the parties avoid further publicizing the date of the hearing,” he said. “This is not a gag order but just a request for courtesy given the death threats and harassing phone calls and voicemails that this division has received. We want a fluid hearing with all parties being heard. I think less advertisement of this hearing is better.”

He said that the case so far has brought “a barrage of death threats and protesters and the rest.”

“So we will have standard security protocols in place, but I’ll just ask as a courtesy that you not further advertise or Tweet any of the details of this hearing so that all parties can be heard and we don’t have any unnecessary circus-like atmosphere of what should be more of an appellate-style proceeding,” he added.

He then told the lawyers that he was going to purposefully keep the hearing off the docket until the day before the hearing, to keep it as under the radar as possible — a move that prompted questions and objections by observers when discovered. A Department of Justice lawyer on the call sought clarification about whether the hearing would be made public at some point Tuesday.

“To minimize some of the unnecessary death threats and voicemails and harassment that this division has received from the start of the case, we’re going to post that later in the day,” Kacsmaryk replied. “So it may even be after business hours, but that will be publicly filed.”

The absolute best case scenario here is that in the end this was all a massive waste of time and energy. Here’s hoping. CNN, ABC News, and CNBC have more.

The unhinged abortion pills lawsuit will take place in darkness

Mar 13th, 2023

by Charles Kuffner.

3 comments

Nothing about this is good.

The Texas judge who could undo government approval of a key abortion drug has scheduled the first hearing in the case for Wednesday but took unusual steps to keep it from being publicized, according to people familiar with the plans.

The hearing will be an opportunity for lawyers for the Justice Department, the company that makes the drug and the conservative group that is challenging it to argue their positions before U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. After they do, the judge could rule at any time.

Kacsmaryk scheduled the hearing during a call with attorneys Friday, said multiple people familiar with the call, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it. Kacsmaryk said he would delay putting the hearing on the public docket until late Tuesday to try to minimize disruptions and possible protests, and asked the lawyers on the call not to share information about it before then, the people said.

Public access to federal court proceedings is a key principle of the American judicial system, and Kacsmaryk’s apparent delay in placing the hearing on the docket is highly unusual. The judge and his staff did not respond to emails requesting comment on Saturday evening.

The lawsuit seeks to revoke Food and Drug Administration approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs used in a medication abortion. The case has garnered widespread attention and protests.

A decision by Kacsmaryk to suspend FDA approval of mifepristone would immediately prompt major changes in how many abortion clinics across the country provide care. Some are planning to immediately switch to a misoprostol-only protocol, while others are planning to offer only surgical abortions. Any decision would likely be appealed to the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, and possibly to the Supreme Court.

[…]

Kacsmaryk told the attorneys that he also wanted to delay publicizing the hearing because courthouse members have received threats in the wake of the lawsuit, according to the people familiar with the call. Several people close to Kacsmaryk say the judge and his family have faced security threats since he ascended to the federal bench in 2019, and those threats have intensified ahead of the abortion pill ruling.

Before and after the Friday phone call with lawyers, The Washington Post repeatedly called and emailed Kacsmaryk’s chambers seeking information about it, but received no response. Kacsmaryk’s chambers also did not respond to a request that reporters be allowed to join the call.

Kacsmaryk was nominated by President Donald Trump and is known for his conservative views on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion.

By waiting to publicize the time of the hearing, Kacsmaryk and his staff could make it difficult for the public, the media and others to travel to the courthouse in Amarillo. The remote, deeply conservative city has few direct flights except from Dallas or San Antonio and is at least a four-hour drive from any of the state’s major, heavily-Democratic cities. Still, over 150 abortion rights advocates gathered there on a Saturday in mid-February to voice their support for abortion pills.

I noted this lawsuit when it was filed. There’s been a metric crap-ton of analysis and punditry and increasingly dire warnings about this lawsuit and the pernicious effect of court-shopping, and I’ll leave it to you to google around for all the screaming into the void you can handle. It’s possible that this maneuver means that Kacsmaryk has at least a dim idea that his actions have the potential to cause a massive shitstorm. It also may just be that he doesn’t care to deal with the media and he has the power to make his wishes come true. Either way, brace yourselves.

UPDATE: Chris Geidner has more.

The next frontier in forced birth litigation

Mar 12th, 2023

by Charles Kuffner.

1 comment

This is truly wild, and potentially very scary.

A Texas man is suing three women under the wrongful death statute, alleging that they assisted his ex-wife in terminating her pregnancy, the first such case brought since the state’s near-total ban on abortion last summer.

Marcus Silva is represented by Jonathan Mitchell, the former Texas solicitor general and architect of the state’s prohibition on abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, and state Rep. Briscoe Cain, R-Deer Park. The lawsuit is filed in state court in Galveston County, where Silva lives.

Silva alleges that his now ex-wife learned she was pregnant in July 2022, the month after the overturn of Roe v. Wade, and conspired with two friends to illegally obtain abortion-inducing medication and terminate the pregnancy.

The friends texted with the woman, sending her information about Aid Access, an international group that provides abortion-inducing medication through the mail, the lawsuit alleges. Text messages filed as part of the complaint seem to show they instead found a way to acquire the medication in Houston, where the two women lived.

A third woman delivered the medication, the lawsuit alleges, and text messages indicate that the wife self-managed an abortion at home.

The defendants could not immediately be reached for comment. Silva’s wife filed for divorce in May 2022, court records show, two months before the alleged abortion. The divorce was finalized in February. They share two daughters, the lawsuit said.

[…]

The lawsuit alleges that assisting a self-managed abortion qualifies as murder under state law, which would allow Silva to sue under the wrongful death statute. The women have not been criminally charged. Texas’ abortion laws specifically exempt the pregnant person from prosecution; the ex-wife is not named as a defendant.

The legality of abortion in Texas in July 2022 is murky. The state’s trigger law, which makes performing abortion a crime punishable by up to life in prison, did not go into effect until August. But conservative state leaders, including Cain and Attorney General Ken Paxton, have claimed that the state’s pre-Roe abortion bans, which punish anyone who performs or “furnishes the means” for an abortion by up to five years in prison, went back into effect the day Roe v. Wade was overturned in June.

The legal status of these pre-Roe statutes remains a contentious question. In 2004, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that those laws were “repealed by implication,” which U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman reaffirmed in a recent ruling. But Cain and others have repeatedly argued that the Legislature restored those laws into effect with recent abortion legislation. This issue went before the Texas Supreme Court, but the case was dismissed before a final ruling.

In 2021, the Legislature passed a law making it a state jail felony to provide abortion-inducing medication except under extremely specific circumstances.

Joanna Grossman, a law professor at SMU Dedman School of Law, said this lawsuit is “absurd and inflammatory.” Since the pregnant patient is protected from prosecution, there is no underlying cause of action to bring a wrongful death suit in a self-managed abortion, she said.

“But this is going to cause such fear and chilling that it doesn’t matter whether [Mitchell] is right,” Grossman said. “Who is going to want to help a friend find an abortion if there is some chance that their text messages are going to end up in the news? And maybe they’re going to get sued, and maybe they’re going to get arrested, and it’s going to get dropped eventually, but in the meantime, they will have been terrified.”

But it’s possible this lawsuit could get traction, said Charles “Rocky” Rhodes, a law professor at South Texas College of Law.

“It’s scary to think that you can be sued for significant damages for helping a friend undertake acts that help her have even a self-medicated abortion,” Rhodes said. “Obviously, the allegations would have to be proven, but there is potentially merit to this suit under Texas’ abortion laws as they exist now.”

Mitchell and Cain intend to also name the manufacturer of the abortion pill as a defendant, once it is identified.

“Anyone involved in distributing or manufacturing abortion pills will be sued into oblivion,” Cain said in a statement.

At first I thought this was an SB8 lawsuit, but it’s not. This is a lawsuit under the “wrongful death” laws, which would make this a lot broader, not to mention not having a $10K cap on how much you can sue for. Among other things, if the plaintiff wins, it would legally establish that a third party can claim an injury when a woman has an abortion. If the alleged father can do that – and bear in mind, the father could be a rapist or an abuser – then who’s to say that a would-be grandparent couldn’t make a similar claim. There are free speech implications as well, if even discussing abortion with a pregnant woman could land you in legal jeopardy. There’s some existing litigation out there about the First Amendment rights of abortion funds, but nothing has been decided yet. All this may sound far-fetched and overly dramatic, but look at the lawyers leading this charge, and what Briscoe Cain – who has said before that he doesn’t just want to make abortion illegal, he wants to make it “unthinkable” – is saying. If anything, I’m not being dark and paranoid enough.

What happens from here is hard to say, but one thing for sure is that these three women are going to be facing many thousands of dollars in legal bills, which among other things may put pressure on them to settle. Again, I’m quite certain that’s all part of the plan. This needs to be much bigger news, and not just in Texas. I’d really like to see national groups and national political figures make a big deal out of this, and not just for fundraising purposes, except to assist the defendants. This is what SCOTUS has unleashed on us, and it’s what these zealots want. We can’t afford to give an inch. The Chron has more.

Fifth Circuit again takes Paxton off the hook for testifying in abortion funds’ lawsuit

Feb 20th, 2023

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

It’s like deja vu all over again.

The only criminal involved

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton will not have to testify in court as part of a lawsuit over whether abortion funds can help people access the procedure in states where it’s still legal.

A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday overruled an order from U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman for Paxton to appear, finding that he should have first ruled on Paxton’s motion to dismiss and that plaintiffs had not proven “exceptional circumstances” existed that would require his testimony. Paxton has argued the court should toss the suit because he has sovereign immunity, a legal principle that protects state officers and agencies from lawsuits.

[…]

Attorneys general rarely testify, as their office’s lawyers are typically able to explain the high-ranking official’s viewpoint and legal argument.

In its ruling Tuesday, the panel of Republican-appointed judges sided with Paxton, who had argued that it would be unduly burdensome for him to testify and that he did not have any unique knowledge of his office’s enforcement policies.

“The fact that a high-ranking official talks to his constituents does not ipso facto mean he also has ample free time for depositions,” the panel wrote in its ruling Tuesday, referencing Paxton’s public statements. “It is entirely unexceptional for a public official to comment publicly about a matter of public concern. If doing so imparts unique knowledge, high-level officials will routinely have to testify.”

If this sounds familiar, it’s because the Fifth Circuit made a basically identical ruling in September. I was puzzled about the reason why this was litigated again, but a link in this story tells me that the district court judge had ordered Paxton to testify a second time, a couple of weeks after the Fifth Circuit ruled initially. I had just missed that story.

My reaction this time is the same as last time, which is that this doesn’t sound unreasonable, but as there’s every reason to be deeply suspicious of the Fifth Circuit I’d like to see an actual lawyer tell me that it’s reasonable, so that I don’t feel like a chump. Anyway, I guess the bottom line is that nothing much new has happened with this lawsuit.

Judge in True the Vote lawsuit recuses himself

Feb 16th, 2023

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

This is a surprise.

A Reagan-appointed federal judge on Monday recused himself from a case involving a Houston-based conservative group that promotes election conspiracy theories after the group’s lawyers accused him of failing to be impartial.

Election management software company Konnech filed the suit in September, alleging that the nonprofit group, True the Vote, defamed the company by making false or reckless statements in social media posts and podcast interviews, damaged the company’s business relationships and accessed data from its computers without authorization.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt in October held the leaders of True the Vote in contempt of court and ordered them to jail until they complied with a temporary restraining order. The two spent nearly a week in jail before a federal appellate court overturned the order and let them go.

Hoyt was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 and took the bench the following year.

Michael Wynne, a Houston lawyer who represents True the Vote, directed Hearst Newspapers to a statement by the group on Twitter.

“True the Vote respects Judge Hoyt’s recusal,” the group wrote. “We credit Judge Hoyt for critically examining his ability to be objective in a politically-charged case like this and then acting in accordance with the law. That is a hard thing for a jurist to do.”

Lawyers for True the Vote argued in a motion to recuse that Hoyt had been unduly influenced by the plaintiff’s “disparaging” and “irrelevant” statements, including citing a Texas Monthly characterization of the group’s leaders as “the Bonnie and Clyde of election denial.”

They wrote that Hoyt exhibited a bias against the group that could affect, or at least appear to affect, his decisions.

They also noted that a three-judge panel of the strongly conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Hoyt’s contempt order and made the unusual statement that Hoyt’s rulings against True the Vote were made “to litigate the case on Konnech’s behalf,” implying the judge favored the plaintiff.

“It is an unavoidable fact that in this case, a case far more politically charged than we see in the great majority of recusal motions found in the case law, a reasonable observer would expect a higher-than-usual standard of judicial evenhandedness and temperance,” True the Vote’s motion read. “Such expectations were challenged once this court inherited plaintiff’s misrepresentations.”

Hoyt did not offer an explanation for granting the motion to recuse. The regional presiding judge will now have to transfer the case to another court or assign another judge to the case.

[…]

True the Vote also claimed Hoyt made comments that displayed his bias. At an Oct. 6 hearing when a lawyer for True the Vote expressed he feared Hoyt thought he was “trying to play a game,” Hoyt responded: “Not you. I’m thinking you may be played.”

“I think I’m a better judge of character than that,” said the group’s former counsel Brock Akers.

“You would have thought that of the president or a lot of lawyers who have been disbarred or who are being now sanctioned,” Hoyt said. “I have no reason to believe those weren’t good lawyers, but they were played.”

Later, Akers said: “I’m confident that I have not been played and that the work that they have done is worthy.”

“The work that who has done?” Hoyt asked.

“The work that my client True the Vote (did) in order to accomplish election integrity overall …” Akers started to say.

“I don’t really have any confidence in any of these folk who claim they are doing that,” Hoyt said. “We did pretty good until about three or four years ago, five or six years ago. The only people that I know of who have done something wrong are people who have been either caught or who have been charged and mistreated. Do errors get made? Yeah. Do people cheat? Perhaps. But all of this fuss and hustle and bustle about the integrity of a process and the way you fix that process is you tear it apart? That’s not integrity. That’s destruction.”

The archives are here. I dunno, man. I obviously have strong opinions about True the Vote, but their actions speak for themselves. This last exchange here sounds more to me like the judge saying that True the Vote’s words and actions don’t match up. Is it bias if your own actions have earned you a certain level of disrespect? Again, I dunno. The main thing I do know is that this is going to set the timetable for this lawsuit back by months. I can’t imagine the plaintiffs are too happy about that.

Texas clinics begin compliance with that wingnut anti-birth control court order

Jan 5th, 2023

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Infuriating but expected.

Texas teens will now need their parents’ permission to get birth control at federally funded clinics, following a court ruling late last month.

These clinics, funded through a program called Title X, provide free, confidential contraception to anyone regardless of age, income or immigration status; before this ruling, Title X was one of the only ways teens in Texas could obtain birth control without parental consent.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled in December that the program violates parents’ rights and state and federal law. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has asked the court to reconsider that decision.

But in the meantime, Texas’ Title X administrator, Every Body Texas, has advised its 156 clinics to require parental consent for minors “out of an abundance of caution” as it awaits further guidance from HHS.

“We hope that as the case proceeds, we are able to revoke this guidance and continue to provide minors in Texas the sexual and reproductive care they need and deserve with or without parental consent,” said Stephanie LeBleu, acting Title X project director at Every Body Texas.

Minors can still access testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy tests, emergency contraception, condoms and counseling without parental consent, LeBleu said.

[…]

The case was brought by Jonathan Mitchell, the former Texas solicitor general who masterminded the state’s ban on abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. Mitchell is representing Alexander Deanda, a father of three daughters.

Deanda is raising his daughters “in accordance with Christian teaching on matters of sexuality, which requires unmarried children to practice abstinence and refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage,” according to the complaint.

Neither Deanda nor his daughters have sought services at a Title X clinic, per the complaint. But Kacsmaryk ruled that the program violates Deanda’s rights under the Texas Family Code and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, denying him the “fundamental right to control and direct the upbringing of his minor children.”

See here and here for the background. Of the many annoying things about this is the obvious-even-to-a-non-lawyer-like-me question of standing. As in, how exactly is this guy injured in any way by the existence of this policy? My daughters have never sought services at a Title X clinic either. Am they now injured because they would have to get my permission to get birth control there? I know I’m asking for a rational answer for an irrational ruling, but I don’t get it.

And speaking of harms, this story came out a few hours after the previous one.

In Sabine County, pine trees outnumber the people. To commute between Pineland and Hemphill, the two towns that anchor the county, residents drive down a road that winds through a national forest. The towns are dotted with churches that loom large in daily community life. Bible scriptures are printed on plaques in local stores and even in Gilder’s office.

Research has shown access to contraception and comprehensive sex education prevents unplanned pregnancies. But for sexually active teens trying not to get pregnant in Sabine County, it’s hard to access either.

Sex education in Texas is taught amid tight parameters and bureaucratic strings. Texas schools have to offer health class at the middle school level, but parents must opt their children in to any lessons about sexual health. And when teachers do touch on sex education, state law requires them to stress abstinence as the preferred choice before marriage.

Even if teens in this region want contraception, it’s nearly impossible to get without parental consent. In small towns like Hemphill and Pineland, parents have eyes and ears everywhere, making teens reluctant to go to the local Brookshire Brothers or dollar store to purchase condoms. They could go to a family planning clinic, which provides contraception at little to no cost, but only clinics funded through the federal Title X program do not require parental permission — and a federal judge in Texas ruled last month that the program violates parents’ rights and state and federal law.

As Every Body Texas, the nonprofit group that is the state’s Title X administrator, awaits guidance from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on how to proceed, it informed Texas providers this week to require parental consent out of precaution.

Today, family planning programs are few and far between, thanks to funding cuts by the Texas Legislature in 2011. No family planning clinic exists in Sabine County. To get to the nearest one, teens in the region must travel to an adjacent county.

Meanwhile, Texas has one of the highest teen birth rates in the country. And in 2020, Sabine County’s teen birth rate was three times the statewide average. Nearly 7% of Sabine County teenage girls between the ages of 15 and 19 gave birth that year, compared with about 2% statewide.

You know where those parents don’t have eyes and ears? All the places where their teenage children are having unsafe sex and getting pregnant as a result. Funny how that works.

Wingnut Trump judge issues his anti-birth control ruling

Dec 23rd, 2022

by Charles Kuffner.

5 comments

And from here it goes to the Fifth Circuit. Isn’t this fun?

A federal court ruling Tuesday may make it nearly impossible for Texas teens to access birth control without their parents’ permission.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that Title X, a federal program that provides free, confidential contraception to anyone, regardless of age, income or immigration status, violates parents’ rights and state and federal law.

Kacsmaryk, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019, is a former religious liberty lawyer who helped litigate cases seeking to overturn protections for contraception. Tuesday’s ruling is expected to be appealed.

Kacsmaryk did not grant an injunction, which would have immediately prohibited Title X clinics from providing contraception to minors without parental consent. Every Body Texas, the Title X administrator in Texas, said in a statement that it is awaiting additional guidance from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on how to proceed.

The case was brought by Jonathan Mitchell, the former Texas solicitor general who designed the novel law that banned most abortions in Texas after about six weeks of pregnancy. Mitchell has also brought a lawsuit to block requirements in the Affordable Care Act that require employers to cover HIV prevention medications.

Mitchell is representing Alexander Deanda, a father of three who is “raising each of his daughters in accordance with Christian teaching on matters of sexuality, which requires unmarried children to practice abstinence and refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage,” according to the complaint.

Deanda does not want his daughters to be able to access contraception or family planning services without his permission, arguing that Title X’s confidentiality clause subverts parental authority and the Texas Family Code, which gives parents the “right to consent to … medical and dental care” for their children.

Kacsmaryk agreed, ruling Tuesday that Title X violates Deanda’s rights under the Texas Family Code and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, denying him the “fundamental right to control and direct the upbringing of his minor children.”

Minors in Texas almost always have to get their parents’ permission to get on birth control. Even Texas teens who have already had a baby cannot consent to getting on birth control; the state has the highest repeat teen birth rate in the nation. Texas is also one of just two states that does not cover contraception at all as part of its state-run Children’s Health Insurance Program.

But Title X, a federal program dating back to the 1970s, is the exception to the rule. While federal regulations say Title X clinics should “encourage family participation … to the extent practical,” they are not allowed to require parental consent or notify parents that a minor has requested or received services.

Kacsmaryk’s ruling “holds unlawful” and “sets aside” that piece of the federal regulation.

See here for the background. As this Vox article observes, wingnut lawyers like Mitchell can file a suit that will almost always be heard by Kacsmaryk, who will pretty much always give them the ruling they want. And because the Fifth Circuit is also full of wingnuts and SCOTUS doesn’t care about wingnut judicial activism, whatever rulings he hands down tend to stay in place even if they later get overturned. What a system, eh? Bloomberg Law, which notes that “HHS had argued that the court’s remedy should be limited to an injunction requiring service providers to notify Deanda should one of his daughters request birth control in contravention of Christian teachings against sex outside of marriage”, has more.

Texas drops appeal of ruling that forbade banning the sale of handguns to people under 21

Dec 22nd, 2022

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Least surprising headline of the week. And month, and year, and pretty much any other arbitrary timeline you choose.

Texas will no longer fight to ban 18- to 20-year-olds from carrying handguns in public. A judge ruled earlier this year that a state law banning the practice was unconstitutional, and Texas initially filed a notice that it would appeal. But Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven McCraw withdrew the appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this week.

U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman’s ruling was the first major decision about Texas gun laws since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the Second Amendment protected individuals who carry weapons for self-defense.

In September, the state filed a notice of appeal, which angered gun rights activists.

“Once again, government officials in the state of Texas are proven to be anti-gun stooges,” Dudley Brown, the president of the National Association for Gun Rights, said in a news release at the time.

Neither the notice of appeal nor the withdrawal listed legal arguments or reasons for doing so; DPS and the Texas attorney general’s office could not immediately be reached for comment.

See here and here for the background. I’m quite certain that the legal reasoning behind this is “we never wanted to appeal this in the first place but there was an election coming up and we wanted to tread carefully, and now that everyone has been safely re-elected we can drop the pretense”. This was predictable enough to be visible from orbit. My question for the lawyers is, could some other group pick up the appeal in place of the state, the way the then-Republican Congress took up the defense of DOMA after the Obama administration dropped out? I don’t know what the conditions are for that.

True the Vote keeps on contempting

Dec 19th, 2022

by Charles Kuffner.

1 comment

Here’s the latest filing from the plaintiffs in the defamation lawsuit against True the Vote and their lying grifter principles, Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips. You may recall that Engelbrecht and Phillips spent a few days in the pokey for contempt having to do with their utter refusal to produce documents and other evidence that they were ordered to do. After a week, they were sprung by the Fifth Circuit, with the agreement/advisory that they really ought to, you know, comply with those orders.

Well, spoiler alert, they have not done so. Indeed, to the surprise of exactly no one who has been forced to pay any attention to this clown show, they have kept on being defiantly contemptuous. This filing goes into detail, and I’ll give you a taste:

Plaintiff Konnech, Inc. (“Konnech”) requests that this Court order Defendants True the Vote, Inc., Gregg Phillips, and Catherine Engelbrecht (“Defendants”) and their counsel of record to appear and show cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating the Court’s direct order from the bench at the prior October 27, 2022 show cause hearing and the Preliminary Injunction signed by this Court on October 31, 2022, based on the following grounds:

Defendants’ contempt is undeniable and inexcusable. For nearly three months, Defendants have defied this Court’s orders—including a TRO, Preliminary Injunction, and a direct order from the bench—requiring them to identify everyone who was involved in accessing the personal identifying information (“PII”) of U.S. poll workers on Konnech’s computers, to describe how they did it, and to identify everyone who has had possession of it. Defendants have treated compliance with the Court’s orders like a game of cat and mouse, and they have refused to comply with this Court’s orders even after being jailed for their contempt of the Court’s TRO.

Now, Defendants are in contempt of Sections 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Preliminary Injunction signed on October 31, 2022, and entered by the clerk on November 3, 2022. Defendants violated Sections 3, 6 and 7 of the Preliminary Injunction for the same reasons that they violated Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the TRO, which are identical. There is evidence to suggest that Defendants also violated Section 4 of the Preliminary Injunction which required them to return all Konnech data in their possession to Konnech. On October 28, Defendants filed an affidavit signed by Defendant Engelbrecht which attached text messages of her alleged communications with the FBI about Konnech. Embedded in those text messages is a spreadsheet titled “Sort by State PII filter SSN Dupes DLN,” which, considering that this file is contained in text messages between Defendants and purported FBI agents with whom Defendants were in contact concerning Konnech, the data therein may include stolen Konnech data. Therefore, given Defendants’ testimony at the show cause hearing that they never had such PII, Defendants may be in further contempt of the
Preliminary Injunction by refusing to return the data contained in this file to Konnech, as required by Section 4 of the Preliminary Injunction. Additionally, Defendants also refused to comply with the Court’s direct order from the bench on October 27 to name every person in the hotel room where Defendants claimed to have accessed PII on Konnech’s computers.

The only appropriate description of Defendants’ conduct is contemptuous. Defendants are blatantly defying the Preliminary Injunction and a bench order for them to provide testimony—which renders them recalcitrant witnesses—and they should be held in contempt of Court for their misconduct.

It’s a long document, but most of that is the evidence that the plaintiffs present. There’s only about ten pages to read to understand their allegations, which includes social media mockery of the judge and threats against one of the Konnech principles. Konnech asks for TTV et al to be subject to “compensatory and coercive sanctions which the Court deems necessary to obtain Defendants’ compliance and to deter further contempt”, among other things. Jail didn’t work, so maybe that will. I’ll keep an eye on this going forward.

We said they’d come for birth control next

Dec 17th, 2022

by Charles Kuffner.

1 comment

And here they are.

Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee to a federal court in Texas, spent much of his career trying to interfere with other people’s sexuality.

A former lawyer at a religious conservative litigation shop, Kacsmaryk denounced, in a 2015 article, a so-called “Sexual Revolution” that began in the 1960s and 1970s, and which “sought public affirmation of the lie that the human person is an autonomous blob of Silly Putty unconstrained by nature or biology, and that marriage, sexuality, gender identity, and even the unborn child must yield to the erotic desires of liberated adults.”

So, in retrospect, it’s unsurprising that Kacsmaryk would be the first federal judge to embrace a challenge to the federal right to birth control after the Supreme Court’s June decision eliminating the right to an abortion.

Last week, Kacsmaryk issued an opinion in Deanda v. Becerra that attacks Title X, a federal program that offers grants to health providers that fund voluntary and confidential family planning services to patients. Federal law requires the Title X program to include “services for adolescents,”

The plaintiff in Deanda is a father who says he is “raising each of his daughters in accordance with Christian teaching on matters of sexuality, which requires unmarried children to practice abstinence and refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage.” He claims that the program must cease all grants to health providers who do not require patients under age 18 to “obtain parental consent” before receiving Title X-funded medical care.

This is not a new argument, and numerous courts have rejected similar challenges to publicly funded family planning programs, in part because the Deanda plaintiff’s legal argument “would undermine the minor’s right to privacy” which the Supreme Court has long held to include a right to contraception.

But Kacsmaryk isn’t like most other judges. In his brief time on the bench — Trump appointed Kacsmaryk in 2019 — he has shown an extraordinary willingness to interpret the law creatively to benefit right-wing causes.

This behavior is enabled, moreover, by the procedural rules that frequently enable federal plaintiffs in Texas to choose which judge will hear their case — 95 percent of civil cases filed in Amarillo, Texas’s federal courthouse are automatically assigned to Kacsmaryk. So litigants who want their case to be decided by a judge with a history as a Christian right activist, with a demonstrated penchant for interpreting the law flexibly to benefit his ideological allies, can all but ensure that outcome by bringing their lawsuit in Amarillo.

And so, last Thursday, the inevitable occurred. Kacsmaryk handed down a decision claiming that “the Title X program violates the constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.”

Kacsmaryk’s decision is riddled with legal errors, some of them obvious enough to be spotted by a first-year law student. And it contradicts a 42-year-long consensus among federal courts that parents do not have a constitutional right to target government programs providing contraceptive care. So there’s a reasonable chance that Kacsmaryk will be reversed on appeal, even in a federal judiciary dominated by Republican appointees.

Nevertheless, Kacsmaryk’s opinion reveals that there are powerful elements within the judiciary who are eager to limit access to contraception. And even if Kacsmaryk’s opinion is eventually rejected by a higher court, he could potentially send the Title X program into turmoil for months.

You can read the rest, and you should be upset by it. Note that there isn’t an injunction yet, just a terrible opinion by a terrible judge who hasn’t yet decided whether to impose his will on the entire country or not. But this is where we are, and it’s not going to end anytime soon. Daily Kos has more.

Forced birther lawsuit targets abortion pills

Nov 23rd, 2022

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Did you think you were going to have a nice, peaceful Thanksgiving week? Sorry, no can do.

Abortion opponents who helped challenge Roe v. Wade filed a lawsuit Friday that takes aim at medication abortions, asking a federal judge in Texas to undo decades-old approval of the drugs that have become the preferred method of ending pregnancy in the U.S.

Even before the Supreme Court struck down the constitutional right to an abortion earlier this year, the use of abortion pills had been increasing in the U.S. and demand is expected to grow as more states seek abortion limits.

The lawsuit was filed by the Alliance for Defending Freedom, which was also involved in the Mississippi case that led to Roe v. Wade being overturned. The lawsuit argues the U.S. Food and Drug Administration erred in approving the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol and overstepped its authority in doing so.

Reached for comment, the FDA said it does not comment on pending or ongoing litigation.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Amarillo, Texas. The state banned abortion after the Roe decision and is among the states where GOP lawmakers have banned mail delivery of the pills.

The number of medication abortions has increased since regulators started allowing them and now account for roughly 40% of U.S. abortions. The medication can cost as little as $110 to get by mail, compared with at least $300 for a surgical abortion. Research has shown the pills are safe.

However, people seeking abortion pills often must navigate differing state laws, including bans on delivery of the drugs and on telemedicine consultations to discuss the medication with a health care provider. And until Democrat Joe Biden became president, U.S. government policy banned mail delivery nationwide.

Axios has a copy of the lawsuit. And before you ask the answer is yes, of course this is about sheer opportunism, not anything resembling facts.

Medication abortion accounts for more than half of abortions in the U.S. In response to the pandemic, the FDA allowed abortion pills to be mailed, which contributed to a significant jump in its use. For decades now, it has been used safely and effectively up to 10 weeks of pregnancy. It has been extensively researched for decades, and has proven safe, effective, and convenient for doctors and patients alike.

There is absolutely no scientific or medical basis for the assertions in this case. It is “an incredibly safe medication,” Loren Colson, a family medicine physician in Idaho and fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health, told The Washington Post. “It’s been well-studied and much safer than a lot of things you can find over the counter,” Colson said. “If they are trying to argue the safety, they have very little ground to stand on. It’s just a clear and blatant attack on abortion.”

One legal expert who has written extensively about the pill calls the safety claims in the suit “ridiculous.” Greer Donley, associate professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, said, “Mifepristone is one of the safest drugs on the market, safer than Viagra and penicillin,” citing the decades of research: “We have a lot of studies and a lot of data on it.” This case, she said, is “really weak.”

Which is why the group chose Texas, where they could find a friendly federal district judge. They did. The case is going to Trump appointee Matthew Kacsmaryk, one of the young extremists the Federalist Society handpicked. He is vehemently anti-LGBTQ and misogynistic, and so extreme in his anti-LGBTQ writings that Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican, voted against him.

His hostility to abortion is no secret. He has described Roe v. Wade as wrongly decided. “On January 22, 1973, seven justices of the Supreme Court found an unwritten ‘fundamental right’ to abortion hiding in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the shadowy ‘penumbras’ of the Bill of Rights, a celestial phenomenon invisible to the non-lawyer eye.”

It’s a junk case with no basis in science or medical research. But we’ve been here before with junk cases, this federal court district, and the 5th Circuit in which it operates. Kacsmaryk will rule for the plaintiffs and possibly even try to put a national injunction on the use of medication abortion. The administration will appeal and it will go to the abortion-hostile 5th Circuit, from where it will be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court.

So yeah, this is bad, not because of the law or anything like that but because of numbers and court-shopping. I don’t know how long it will take to get to a hearing and then to a preliminary ruling, but it’s out there. Be prepared for it. Bloomberg Law and Kaiser Health News have more.

Paxton taken off the hook for testifying in abortion funds’ lawsuit

Nov 17th, 2022

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

By the Fifth Circuit, of course.

Best mugshot ever

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton will not have to testify as nonprofits that help patients legally obtain abortions seek clarity on whether they can do their work in states like Texas where the procedure is outlawed, a federal appellate court ruled Monday.

A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that an Austin federal court judge should have granted Paxton’s motion to quash subpoenas he was served by the plaintiff abortion funds.

The subpoena made national headlines after Paxton evaded a legal messenger who had shown up at his house on the eve of a hearing in the case. Paxton later called the messenger “suspicious” and “erratic” and said he “justifiably feared for his personal safety.”

The abortion funds are suing the state for protection to resume their work amid the state’s newly enforced abortion bans. They have said Paxton’s testimony is necessary because he and his office have made conflicting statements about the legality of helping Texas residents legally obtain abortions in other states, and he is the only person who can clarify their meaning and intent.

“We are happy that Judge Pitman can move forward in the case now, and that the Fifth Circuit has acknowledged the real threats against our clients related to assisting people to access reproductive health care out of state,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys said in a joint statement.

[…]

At first, the district court granted Paxton’s motions to quash the subpoenas; however, after more information came to light — Paxton had claimed he was served “on the literal eve of trial,” yet emails submitted to the court by the abortion funds’ lawyers showed he had at least four days notice — the judge changed course and ordered Paxton to testify.

The appellate judges disagreed with the lower court’s finding that there were “exceptional circumstances” requiring Paxton to testify.

“Paxton’s personal ‘thoughts and statements’ have no bearing on his office’s legal authority to enforce Texas’s abortion laws or any other law,” the panel wrote in the ruling. “It is entirely unexceptional for a public official to comment publicly about a matter of public concern. If doing so imparts unique knowledge, high-level officials will routinely have to testify.”

The panel also disagreed with the lower court’s contention that testifying would not cause a significant burden for Paxton.

“‘High ranking government officials have greater duties and time constraints than other witnesses,'” they wrote, citing prior case law. “Those duties often involve communicating with the public on matters of public interest. The fact that a high-ranking official talks to his constituents does not ipso facto mean he also has ample free time for depositions.”

See here for the background. This is one of those times where I wish the story included a quote or two from an actual legal expert about the opinion. We all know how deeply in the tank for Paxton the Fifth Circuit is, but based on what is reported in the story, the ruling seems at least defensible. But the Fifth Circuit is so utterly corrupt that I can’t rely on my judgment here, and they deserve absolutely no benefit of the doubt. I don’t want to be a chump here, so I’d like to see someone who knows these things render an assessment. In the absence of that, all I have is my well-honed instinct to not trust that terrible court. And we’ll all have the Internet mockery of Ken Paxton for his pusillanimous efforts to evade the process server. Sometimes the snark is the most dependable thing out there.

Fifth Circuit releases the True the Vote duo

Nov 8th, 2022

by Charles Kuffner.

1 comment

Thanks for making the streets less safe.

After spending nearly a week in jail, Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips — leaders of Texas-based right-wing voting activist group True the Vote — have been released. They’d been held for contempt of court since Halloween, having repeatedly refused to release the name of a man they called a “confidential FBI informant” who is a person of interest in a defamation and hacking case against them.

The person remains unidentified.

Their release came after True the Vote’s lawyers appealed the contempt order by federal district Judge Kenneth Hoyt to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, arguing the finding of contempt was in error and the pair should be released from jail. The appeals court granted their release but kept the remainder of Hoyt’s order in place.

[…]

In the week since Engelbrecht and Phillips were escorted to federal detention, they have turned their plight into a national public relations and fundraising blitz. Former President Trump, speaking at a rally in Pennsylvania last week, defended Engelbrecht, calling her “incredible” and a “patriot.”

“And she’s now in a Houston prison along with another great patriot. And you know what they did? They went out and they saw illegal ballot stuffing,” he told the crowd, conflating the Konnech debacle with the “2000 Mules” documentary, a separate True the Vote project. “Can you imagine? They put her in prison. She’s in jail. What a disgrace. Our country’s going to hell in so many different ways.”

Engelbrecht and Phillips were not held in “prison” but rather the Joe Corley Federal Detention Facility, which is a temporary lock-up facility used by the U.S. Marshals and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and is not run by the Bureau of Prisons. Still, they repeatedly claimed to be in “prison” in their many fundraising efforts of the past week.

The day after their arrest, a True the Vote staff member sent a message to supporters, saying Engelbrecht was in “federal prison.”

See here for the background. I don’t know what kind of leverage exists to force an absolutely resistant defendant to comply if contempt is off the table, but perhaps this isn’t the final word on the matter. Maybe a default judgment will become a possibility at some point. These two are dedicated grifters and their basic strategy is to try to frustrate everyone into giving up. I sure hope the judge here will have some more tools in the box to prevent them from getting away with it.

Fifth Circuit does its thing with appeal of voter purge case

Oct 2nd, 2022

by Charles Kuffner.

2 comments

Get out the rubber stamp.

Still the only voter ID anyone should need

A federal appeals court has ruled that Texas does not need to release details about a list of 11,737 registered voters whom the state has identified as potential noncitizens.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on Thursday reversed a lower court’s ruling in August in which a district judge had found Texas was violating federal law by refusing to release the list.

The appellate court found that the five civil rights groups suing the Texas secretary of state for the list did not have standing to sue. Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones wrote in the ruling that the groups have neither established injury to themselves from the state’s refusal to release the list nor sued on behalf of any voter included on the list who could be harmed.

The coalition “offered no meaningful evidence regarding any downstream consequences from an alleged injury in law under the NVRA [National Voter Registration Act],” Jones wrote. “The lack of concrete harm here is reinforced because not a single Plaintiff is a Texas voter, much less a voter wrongfully identified as ineligible.”

The groups suing the state are the Campaign Legal Center, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Demos. The groups, which sued the state in February for failing to comply with the NVRA’s public disclosure requirements, sought to hold Texas accountable if it incorrectly misidentified registered voters as noncitizens and disenfranchised naturalized citizens.

“We are disappointed with the court’s opinion and are exploring our options with respect to any next steps,” Molly Danahy, the Campaign Legal Center’s senior legal counsel for litigation, said in a statement. We will continue to monitor potential voter purges in Texas because transparency is vital to a healthy democracy and all citizens deserve to have equal access to the ballot.”

See here and here for the background. I didn’t find any discussion of this in the usual places I look on Twitter, so I don’t know if there’s a hint of merit to the ruling or if it’s wholly made up. Given the recent history of this circuit and that top-level bad actor Edith Jones wrote it, you can probably guess what I think. The Fifth Circuit not only gets no benefit of the doubt from me, they get a presumption of doubt. This is simply not a legitimate court, and this wasn’t even their worst ruling of the week. Burn it all down.

Fifth Circuit upholds Texas’ ridiculous social media censorship law

Sep 19th, 2022

by Charles Kuffner.

6 comments

Back to you, SCOTUS.

A Texas law prohibiting large social media companies from banning users’ posts based on their political viewpoints will go into effect after a federal appeals court on Friday lifted a block placed on the statute.

NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association sued Texas after the law, known as House Bill 20, was passed last year, arguing that internet companies have a First Amendment right to curate content posted on their platforms and decide which types of speech they saw fit to be there.

In its ruling, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that the law was unconstitutional, saying they were seeking protection to “muzzle free speech.”

“Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say,” the ruling says.

The CCIA said the ruling forced tech companies to give equal treatment to all manners of speech, including extremist views.

“We strongly disagree with the court’s decision. Forcing private companies to give equal treatment to all viewpoints on their platforms places foreign propaganda and extremism on equal footing with decent Internet users, and places Americans at risk,” the group said. “‘God Bless America’ and ‘Death to America’ are both viewpoints, and it is unwise and unconstitutional for the State of Texas to compel a private business to treat those the same.”

See here for the previous update, in which SCOTUS blocked the law pending the Fifth Circuit’s ruling on the appeal, and here for a copy of the opinion. I think this sums it all up:

.
The Fifth Circuit has dropped another opinion that makes me question why I bother being a lawyer.

I like how a corporation has the religious right to decide what health benefits to provide to its employees, but not the right to prohibit racist speech.

Fascinating stuff.

— Andrew Kinsey (@KinseyAndrew) 3:46 PM – 16 September 2022

You and me both. We’ve now reached that point, and as everyone expects this to be appealed it will be back to SCOTUS for the final word. I have no idea what to expect. The Chron has more.

A different EMTALA ruling in Idaho

Aug 26th, 2022

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

As expected. You know where this goes from here.

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked Idaho from enforcing a ban on abortions when pregnant women require emergency care, a day after a judge in Texas ruled against President Joe Biden’s administration on the same issue.

The conflicting rulings came in two of the first lawsuits over Biden’s attempts to keep abortion legal after the conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court in June overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized the procedure nationwide.

Legal experts said the dueling rulings in Idaho and Texas could, if upheld on appeal, force the Supreme Court to wade back into the debate.

[…]

In Idaho, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill agreed with the U.S. Department of Justice that the abortion ban taking effect Thursday conflicts with a federal law that ensures patients can receive emergency “stabilizing care.”

Winmill, who was appointed to the court by former Democratic President Bill Clinton, issued a preliminary injunction blocking Idaho from enforcing its ban to the extent it conflicts with federal law, citing the threat to patients.

“One cannot imagine the anxiety and fear (a pregnant woman) will experience if her doctors feel hobbled by an Idaho law that does not allow them to provide the medical care necessary to preserve her health and life,” Winmill wrote.

The Justice Department has said the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires abortion care in emergency situations.

“Today’s decision by the District Court for the District of Idaho ensures that women in the State of Idaho can obtain the emergency medical treatment to which they are entitled under federal law,” U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a written statement.

“The Department of Justice will continue to use every tool at its disposal to defend the reproductive rights protected by federal law,” Garland said. The DOJ has said that it disagrees with the Texas ruling and is considering next legal steps.

See here for the background. TPM goes deeper into the two rulings and also provides copies of them, but the bottom line is that the Texas judge said that the federal guidance went too far, didn’t go through the formal rule-change process (even though it was guidance on an existing rule and not a change), didn’t take the rights of the fetus into account, and could only apply when the mother’s life was in danger, not just when her health was threatened. The Idaho judge didn’t do any of that.

Both rulings will be appealed, and as Idaho is in the more liberal Ninth Circuit, there’s a very good chance that this ruling will be upheld. The same is true for Texas, where the radical and lawless Fifth Circuit will get its paws on it. While it is usually the case that a split in the appellate courts means that SCOTUS will weigh in, it seems possible to me that they will duck the issue, perhaps on the grounds that this is really a dispute over state laws, and since the Texas case applies only to Texas, there’s no need for them to step in. I’m just guessing, I could easily be wrong. We’ll know soon enough. DAily Kos has more.

Restraining order granted in Paxton’s EMTALA lawsuit

Aug 25th, 2022

by Charles Kuffner.

1 comment

Ugh.

Texas hospitals will not be required to provide emergency abortions after a federal judge ruled the Biden administration was unauthorized to enforce such a rule.

U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix in Lubbock ruled that the guidance by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services went beyond the text of a related federal law, Reuters reported. The judge’s ruling agreed with Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Hendrix, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, only barred federal regulators from enforcing the guidance and its interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in Texas, and against two anti-abortion groups of doctors. The judge declined to enjoin the guidance nationwide.

[…]

The ruling is the latest in an ongoing battle for abortion rights in Texas and other conservative-led states. When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned abortion rights in the country, Texas had a clear path for its “trigger law” that bans almost all abortions, which goes into effect Thursday.

The Biden administration’s guidance was an attempted response to concerns about the health of pregnant patients being turned away or delayed care by hospitals worried about abortion bans. The Texas Medical Association wrote a letter asking state regulators to “prevent any wrongful intrusion into the practice of medicine.”

See here for the background. At least this time it’s just limited to the state and not nationwide, though of course it’s our effed-up state that needed this to be decided differently. As TPM notes, there’s a similar case in Idaho that may have a ruling by the time you read this, so we’re going to be fighting this out in the appeals courts and then very likely SCOTUS. Joy.

I often say that I Am Not A Lawyer in posts about legal things. I say that in part to make it clear that my analysis is that of a layperson, and one should be wary of accepting my acumen of the finer points of legal theory. But that also frees me to an extent of the concern about the technicalities and lets me just focus on the things that should matter, whether they actually will in a real courtroom or not. As a prime example of this, let’s look at a bit of the judge’s ruling. I’m quoting from that TPM story now:

“That Guidance goes well beyond EMTALA’s text, which protects both mothers and unborn children, is silent as to abortion, and preempts state law only when the two directly conflict,” Hendrix writes.

Siding with the two groups of anti-abortion physicians as well as the state of Texas, Hendrix writes that the HHS guidance requiring physicians to act when the woman’s health is at risk is too generous.

“The Guidance states that EMTALA may require an abortion when the health of the pregnant woman is in serious jeopardy,” he says. “Texas law, on the other hand, limits abortions to when the medical condition is life-threatening, and HLPA goes further to expressly limit the condition to a physical condition,” he adds, referring to Texas’ trigger law that outlaws abortions in most cases.

He argues that the guidance also does away with consideration for the embryo or fetus. The government contends that, when the wellbeing of the woman and embryo or fetus are in conflict, it should be the pregnant patient who decides whether or not to go forth with an abortion. Hendrix says that the decision should be taken out of the woman’s hands and put into the doctor’s — who has to then comply with state law.

He also dips into agency power arguments to hack back the guidance, claiming that Congress has not resolved the specific question at play.

“Specifically, the question at issue here is whether Congress has directly addressed whether physicians must perform abortions when they believe that it would resolve a pregnant woman’s emergency medical condition, irrespective of the unborn child’s health and state law,” he writes. “Congress has not.”

In other words, unless you the doctor who may get prosecuted for murder are sure the pregnant person is going to die, you have to let them suffer. I don’t care about the legal technicalities, I’m here to say that if you’re capable of committing these words to a document, you’re a goddamned sociopath and you have no business having power of any kind. That of course also applies to Ken Paxton and Greg Abbott and every single member of the Legislature who voted for these barbaric laws. It’s what this election is about. And I should note that Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who is an actual lawyer, sees this the same way I do. So there. Daily Kos and CNN have more.

Most of the lawsuit against the voter suppression law survives a motion to dismiss

Aug 6th, 2022

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Some good news.

In a limited order this week, a federal judge threw out some civil rights and discrimination claims brought as part of a complex and ongoing legal dispute over strict new voting rules in Texas.

The lawsuit filed last year alleges that the rules violate the U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by restricting voter assistance and making it easier for “partisan poll watchers to intimidate voters and poll workers.”

[…]

In his order on Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Xavier Rodriguez, a George W. Bush appointee, did not provide a clear win to either side in the protracted legal fight.

On one hand, Rodriguez did agree with Texas officials that civil rights groups had in some cases failed to a state a claim, meaning they could not adequately show a violation of federal law or a potential injury to voters. He dismissed a handful of claims brought by the civil rights groups, which include the League of Women Voters of Texas and the Workers Defense Action Fund.

On the other hand, Rodriguez’s order was hardly kind to Texas officials. Over the course of 61 pages, he detailed not only why civil rights groups had standing to sue, but also how they’d “clearly” established that SB1 could have discriminatory effects on voting rights.

The judge waved off efforts by Texas officials to have more or all of the lawsuit dismissed — including the state’s unusual argument that civil rights groups shouldn’t be able to sue because “the organizations themselves do not have a disability.”

“It is well settled,” Rodriguez wrote, “that an organization may sue as the representative of its members.”

While past filings in this lawsuit have largely hinged on nuances of civil rights law, Tuesday’s order was interesting because it detailed the lived experiences of disabled voters in Texas.

The civil plaintiffs presented examples from at least three voters — all members of the disability voting-rights group REV UP — whom they said could be harmed by Texas’ new voting law.

These examples were “non-exhaustive,” plaintiffs said, and represented just some of the disabled Texans who could face voting difficulties if SB 1 is allowed to stand.

See here for the background. There were multiple lawsuits filed, with the Justice Department getting involved later on. This is the San Antonio lawsuit from that first blog post. I assume that most if not all of these cases have been combined but it’s hard for me to say from the information I have easily available. Democracy Docket has some information on this one, and they provide a PDF that combines multiple orders from Judge Rodriguez; the Courthouse News story only has one of them, which threw me for a minute as I was trying to verify that I was referring to the correct case. This stuff is complicated, y’all.

Anyway. That story goes into two of those examples, and you should read about them, they’re quite compelling. I’m never quite sure if the Republicans who pass these voter suppression bills legitimately don’t care that people such as these plaintiffs won’t be able to vote as a result, or if they just can’t be bothered to hear their stories while the bills are in progress, lest they have some feelings of guilt or remorse, if those are possible for them. The end result is the same, I just want to know how to calibrate my contempt. Anyway, this is in addition to the other voter suppression bill that was struck down – we are apparently at a point where a bunch of these are getting some action, which is always exciting. As usual, nothing is safe until the Fifth Circuit is done with it, and we know what that usually means. So celebrate responsibly, we may be mourning later on.

Redistricting plaintiffs get a win on discovery

Aug 2nd, 2022

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Every little bit helps.

A federal judge on Monday issued a wide-ranging discovery order requiring Texas state lawmakers to turn over documents related to the state’s congressional redistricting plans.

The underlying lawsuit, filed by the League of United Latin American Citizens and several other civil rights groups, is part of a broad effort to correct what critics say is voter intimidation and discrimination in Texas heading into the 2022 midterm elections.

[…]

Like the separate lawsuit over Texas election laws, this redistricting case has continued to swell since its initial filing, with six other lawsuits consolidated into the legal fight. Days after the case was filed, the Fifth Circuit appointed a three-judge panel to oversee the increasingly complex case.

In November, the Justice Department also joined those suing state officials. It was doing so, the federal government said, because Texas redistricting plans had raised “important questions” about possible violations of the Voting Rights Act.

Since then, the case has largely hinged on issues of discovery. Texas lawmakers have battled against subpoenas, arguing that much of their work on redistricting was privileged information. They filed hundreds of pages of court documents detailing information they do not think they should have to turn over, including what they’ve described as “confidential communications” reflecting “thoughts, opinions and mental impressions.”

The Department of Justice, meanwhile, has continued its efforts to enforce subpoenas. The feds argue Texas officials have “inappropriately” claimed attorney-client privilege, refused to turn over documents from decades ago and “advanced an overbroad conception” of legislative privilege that has withheld “even communications with members of the public.” As a result, they say, lawmakers have disclosed “merely one-third” of the documents requested in subpoenas.

In his order on Monday, U.S. District Court Judge David Guaderrama, an Obama appointee, agreed with arguments from the DOJ and the civil rights groups. He found that Texas lawmakers were using overly broad theories of legislative privilege and could not “cloak conversations with executive-branch officials, lobbyists, and other interested outsiders.”

Guaderrama ruled the factors in this case weighed in favor of granting discovery requests. He cited the “seriousness of the litigation and the issues involved,” including allegations of lawbreaking and “intentional discrimination” against minority voters.

While Texas lawmakers asserted attorney-client privilege, the judge ruled they could not simply decline to release any documents referencing legal analysis, including scheduling calendars and communications with outside firms involved in redistricting. These documents are not “categorically privileged,” he wrote.

In the end, Guaderrama ordered Texas lawmakers to turn over a wide array of documents relating to redistricting, including “talking points” defending the maps. For any documents that contained “bona fide legal advice” or “privileged material,” Guaderrama ordered lawmakers to produce redacted versions.

About two months ago, the plaintiffs scored a different win in that three Republican legislators who had tried to avoid having to sit for depositions failed to get a lower court ruling against them overturned. If this ruling stands – always a dicey proposal when the Fifth Circuit is involved – then what the plaintiffs will gain is a lot of insight into what the legislators and their staff and advisors were saying to each other at the time. The experience from previous rounds of redistricting litigation is that there will be some good stuff there for the plaintiffs. Which still might not matter in the end, since SCOTUS has made its preferences very clear, but as I said in that last post, you have to start somewhere. Link via Reform Austin.

Fifth Circuit tosses mask mandate lawsuit filed by disability rights activists

Jul 30th, 2022

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Par for the course.

A federal appeals court on Monday tossed out a lower-court injunction, issued in November, that would have allowed public schools in Texas to ignore Gov. Greg Abbott’s ban on mask mandates.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel of Austin had blocked Abbott’s order as it pertained to schools, ruling that a ban on mandatory face masks improperly endangered students with disabilities and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by denying them the opportunity to participate equally in school.

Texas appealed, and a month later the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked enforcement of Yeakel’s injunction while it considered the state’s case.

On Monday, in a 2-1 ruling, the appeals court sided with state officials, tossing out Yeakel’s injunction and dismissing the lawsuit by the students. The court said the students did not prove that the ban on mask mandates put them at imminent and concrete risk of contracting COVID-19.

“In light of widely available vaccines and the schools’ other mitigation efforts, the odds of any particular plaintiff contracting COVID-19 and subsequently suffering complications are speculative,” Judge Andrew Oldham wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Don Willett. Both were appointed by former President Donald Trump.

In addition, Oldham wrote, the Americans with Disabilities Act only ensures that students have access to school, not that they have access to their desired accommodation of universal masking.

“Schools, in turn, have numerous alternatives for mitigating the risks of COVID-19 so plaintiffs have such access. The schools can adopt policies regarding vaccines, plexiglass, hand sanitizer, social distancing, and more,” Oldham wrote. “Plaintiffs have not even attempted to show that one or any combination of these accommodations is insufficient to mitigate the risks of COVID-19 to a level low enough that plaintiffs can attend school.”

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Eugene Davis complained that Oldham mischaracterized the students’ argument by saying they merely feared an increased risk of contracting COVID-19. Instead, the students argued that state Attorney General Ken Paxton’s dogged defense of Abbott’s ban on mask mandates, including lawsuits against school districts and threats of additional litigation, amounted to disability discrimination.

The students also proved that they had been, or will be, harmed by a ban on all mask mandates, even at schools that determine that limited mask orders were a reasonable accommodation for student health, he wrote.

“While all students bear some health risks by attending school in person during the ongoing pandemic, the district court found, and it is undisputed, that these plaintiffs face a much higher risk to their health because of their disabilities,” said Davis, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan.

See here for the previous update, and here for a copy of the opinion. There are still a lot of state lawsuits over the Abbott executive order that banned mask mandates in school, which largely turn on the question of what the Governor’s authority under the 1975 Texas Disaster Act is; the San Antonio ISD vaccine mandate lawsuit is in that same bucket. This was a federal lawsuit that claimed discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. I still think they had a pretty good argument, but it’s the Fifth Circuit, what are you gonna do? I suppose an appeal to SCOTUS is possible, but perhaps not advisable, as it’s probably not a good idea to give them a chance to mess with that law. Texas Public Radio and the ABA Journal have more.

A piece of the voter suppression law is blocked

Jul 22nd, 2022

by Charles Kuffner.

Comments are off for this post

Buckle up, this will take a bit of explanation.

Parts of a 2021 Texas voting law that cracked down on assistance for voters with limited English skills and voters with disabilities can no longer be enforced.

A federal judge in Texas issued a ruling last month striking down provisions in Texas’ new law, known as Senate Bill 1, that set limits on how people can help voters cast their ballots. State officials had until last week to appeal the ruling, but they declined. The office of the Texas attorney general has not responded to requests for comment.

Lisa Snead, a litigation attorney at Disability Rights Texas, said the court decision is a big win for voters with disabilities in the state.

“The provision of SB 1 limiting assistance … really limited what voters with disabilities could receive,” she said. “And it had a grave impact on voters who tried to vote in … elections in March and May.”

[…]

Among its provisions, SB 1 restricted assistance to only reading the ballot for a voter, marking the ballot for a voter, directing the voter to read the ballot and directing the voter to mark the ballot.

Groups including the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund went to federal court and argued that the voter assistance parts of SB 1 directly violate a 2018 injunction that ruled that similar limitations in Texas’ election code at the time violated the federal Voting Rights Act. The court agreed and also directed the state to change its training for voting assistants.

In addition, the court barred Texas from including those restrictions in the language of an oath an assistor must swear to when helping voters. SB 1 requires people aiding voters to fill out paperwork disclosing their relationship with the voter and whether they are compensated. It also requires they recite an oath under the penalty of perjury stating they did not “pressure or coerce” the voter into choosing them for assistance.

Debbie Chen with Organization of Chinese Americans of Greater Houston, which was the plaintiff in the 2018 case, said in a statement earlier this month that SB 1 made assistors afraid to answer voters’ questions in the state’s primary elections.

“Asian American voters with limited English often need to ask questions to understand the ballot and the voting process,” Chen said. “This is especially true for people who provide them with assistance and must translate the English ballot and the whole process on the spot.”

This lawsuit was filed in Travis County in September; there was another lawsuit filed at the same time in Bexar County, but that is not a part of this case. I did not see any news stories about the injunction that had been granted, so this is the first update that I’m aware of. The story refers to a 2018 injunction granted from a 2016 lawsuit over similar issues – see here for more on the lawsuit. I had noted the appeal of that injunction, but it seems I lost track of the litigation after that. Sometimes these things don’t make the news, and sometimes they only make the news in places I don’t see.

Anyway. The allegation here is that the latest voter suppression bill contained language that directly violated the terms of the 2018 injunction – in some cases, SB1 more or less directly quoted things that the court had said were enjoined. Some great work by the staff there, fellas. I’m a little surprised the state didn’t bother appealing this to the Fifth Circuit, even though that 2018 injunction had been narrowly tailored to comply with their order remanding the case back so it could be more narrowly written. Maybe there are some things even the Fifth Circuit won’t do. In any event, while there are still many issues with SB1, at least this won’t be among them. Kudos to all for getting this done. The Chron has more.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Calendar

Search

Categories

Archives

My linkage

Polling Texas 2020

Polling Texas 2018

Polling Texas 2016

Polling Texas 2014

Polling Texas 2012

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Tags

Blogroll

Utilities

Categories

Archives

Calendar

Pages

Meta