WWTBAM Bored

The Supreme Court today unanimously overruled the Fifth Circuit and threw out a ruling that would have barred access to the abortion drug Mifepristone. The Court did not reach the merits of the lower court''s ruling (that the FDA improperly approved the drug). Instead, the Court said that the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the suit. The plaintiffs were a group of doctors in a very conservative district in Texas who claimed that they might have to treat patients who had complications from using the drug. They filed suit in that district, knowing that the only federal judge was an extreme conservative likely to give them a favorable ruling.

In another case decided today, the Court unanimously ruled that the Federal Trademark Office properly denied an application from activists who were marketing "Trump Too Small" tee shirts (referring to a certain part of his anatomy). The Court differed on the reasoning, but it was primarily because you can't trademark somebody else's name without their permission.

The Supreme Court's "centrist" turn lasted all of one day. Today, they issued a 6-3 ruling (along predictable lines) that the ATF's regulations that treated bump stocks as machine guns (adopted by the Trump administration after the Las Vegas mass shooting) were invalid and that Congress would need to pass a law to that effect. There probably would have been enough sentiment in favor of such a law in 2018, but the ATF determination mooted that point. Now, bump stocks are back on the market just in time for anyone planning to protest the next election results.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 13, 2024 9:49 am

The Supreme Court today unanimously overruled the Fifth Circuit and threw out a ruling that would have barred access to the abortion drug Mifepristone. The Court did not reach the merits of the lower court''s ruling (that the FDA improperly approved the drug). Instead, the Court said that the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the suit. The plaintiffs were a group of doctors in a very conservative district in Texas who claimed that they might have to treat patients who had complications from using the drug. They filed suit in that district, knowing that the only federal judge was an extreme conservative likely to give them a favorable ruling.

It's not quite correct to say that the Court "restore[d] access to Mifepristone." The Court stayed the District Court's injunction pending appeal, so access was never lost. It would have been restricted had the Court affirmed the District Court or the Fifth Circuit, but the word "restores" suggests that access was lost, and that isn't correct. --Bob