Judge Rice says that his injunction still applies "irrespective" of the Tex/5th Cir ruling.

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text: Chris “Subscribe to Law Dork!” Geidner

@chrisgeidner
·
Follow
BREAKING: Judge Rice in Washington says that his injunction — requiring continued availability of mifepristone under the January 2023 REMS (allowing mailed prescriptions) in the 17 plaintiffs states + DC in the lawsuit — applies “irrespective” of the Tex/5th Cir ruling.

Defendants’ Motion for Clarification and Motion to Expedite, ECF Nos. 81 and 82, are GRANTED.
2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a), irrespective of the Northern District of Texas Court ruling or the Fifth Circuit’s anticipated ruling, Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and any person in active concert or participation, are PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED 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.”
2:11 PM · Apr 13, 2023

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[Ligyron]

2. Excellent!

Take that christofacists.

[In It to Win It]

3. kicking

[niyad]

4. KNR

[getagrip_already]

5. So now scotus has to rule....

It would be weird if they didn't take up the appeal given opposing federal district opinions/rulings.

[bluestarone]

6. See how states deciding works

SC?

[getagrip_already]

7. Not sure of the question but...

I was talking about federal court decisions and an appeal to the us Supreme Court.

One of the constitutional roles of scotus is to resolve disputes within the federal courts. This would be a dispute.

I'm neither lawyer nor constitutional expert though. I'm sure the experts will correct.

[bluestarone]

8. Sorry i was just making a comment (not at you) about how the SC ruling that allows states

To decide their abortion rules. THIS is what happens. (TWO fed judges) deciding LAWS! It's CRAZY!

[ShazzieB]

17. What's really ironic is that Kacsmaryk's ruling amounts to a direct repudiation of SCOTUS.

SCOTUS: States should decide about the legality of abortion.
Kacsmaryk: Oh yeah? Hold my beer! No, not you, Kavanaugh! Hand that to somebody else!
Kavanaugh: *BURP* *wipes mouth on sleeve* I like beer. Do you like beer?

[MontanaMama]

18. This!

It occurred to me that the safety of women and girls and their ability to access health care of all kinds may end up depending on the state they live in.

[soldierant]

16. Yeah.

Because one judge is IN Texas and the other is IN Washington does not mean that they are OF Tsxas or OF Washington. Both are federal judges.

[NullTuples]

15. "it would be weird if they" - Have you seen this court? I can see them kicking both cases back

Just to stall until next session.

[lostnfound]

19. Might they possibly rule that the FDA is an unconstitutional interference into states rights...

Or some other rightwing pet ideology? Or open the door to ‘objections of conscience’ from states to drug approvals?
Well, pharma is pretty powerful and that would make them darned unhappy, because generally they want captive regulators rather than no regulators, and consistent approvals across states.

[bluescribbler]

9. Washington judge to Texas Judge and fifth circuit:

Texas judge, go fuck yourself.

[republianmushroom]

10. I like it

[iluvtennis]

11. Excellent news. KnR. n/t

[Marthe48]

12. Go Judge Rice!

He is a real judge! Not some fascist fluff boy

[Cha]

13. Wow.. TY & Judge Thomas RIce!

Link to tweet

[Cha]

14. B/c Kacsmaryk's order wasn't in effect when Rice ruled, Rice rules today, he had jurisdiction and

TY.. that I can understand!

Link to tweet

[intrepidity]

20. I haven't been following closely. Can someone give a synposis

of the Texas judge's ruling? Like, on what basis did he decide for everyone that they can't get a certain medication?