lawrota.com

The attorneys general of Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho have taken a significant step in a complex and nationally significant legal battle over medication abortion. They are seeking to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s approval of and rules regarding one of the two drugs used in medication abortion. This move could have far-reaching implications and potentially reshape the entire case.

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering whether to hear appeals in this case, which challenges the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of and later actions to ease access to mifepristone, a medication used in abortion. The attorneys general filed their motion to intervene in the district court, introducing an anti-abortion complaint almost a year after the lawsuit was initially filed. This intervention comes just in time as the current plaintiffs in the case are due to respond to the petitions at the Supreme Court.

The core issue at the Supreme Court revolves around whether the current parties challenging the case have the legal standing to do so. The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and similar anti-abortion medical associations have been granted standing by lower courts based on the likelihood that their members will treat people facing severe complications from the use of mifepristone. However, the Department of Justice and Danco Laboratories argue that these standing theories are speculative and rely on unfettered choices made by independent actors.

The implications of the states’ intervention are significant. If the Supreme Court grants review of the preliminary order currently before it, the states would not be parties, and the case would involve time and resources. A Supreme Court ruling that the current parties lack standing would not end the case if the states are granted intervention at the district court. The case would then continue to final judgment, leading to the Fifth Circuit, and possibly returning to the Supreme Court, creating an inefficient process.

The states argue that they have standing based on alleged direct economic injuries, injuries to their sovereign interests, and injury to their interests in protecting their citizens’ health. Allowing the states to intervene would ensure that all relevant interests are presented at once, promoting judicial efficiency.

This development has left the Supreme Court with several possible courses of action. It could decide to hear the case and petitions, although this is considered unlikely due to the inefficiency and waste it could entail. Alternatively, the Supreme Court could deny certiorari, which is also improbable given the consequences of such a denial. Another option is for the Supreme Court to hold the petitions while matters develop below.

The states’ intervention adds another layer of complexity to an already intricate legal battle. The final outcome remains uncertain, but this recent development is likely to delay the resolution of the legal challenge to mifepristone by the Supreme Court.

#MedicationAbortion #FDAApproval #LegalBattle #ReproductiveRights #SupremeCourt #AttorneysGeneral #StandingChallenge