Black+Queer+Recovering Lawyer & Deputy Director of Programs & Policy @URGE_org. Love tiny homes, & coffee. RTs are not endorsements & tweets are my own.
- Tweets8.7K
- Following956
- Followers345
- Likes5K
ALT 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: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION ~ 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Case 1:23-cv-03026-TOR ECF No. 91 filed 04/13/23 PageID.2252 Page 6 of 6 “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.”
ALT Before Haynes,∗ Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: For the reasons given below, IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motions for a stay pending appeal are GRANTED IN PART. At this preliminary stage, ... it appears that the statute of limitations bars plaintiffs’ challenges to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone in 2000. In the district court, plaintiffs brought a series of alternative arguments regarding FDA’s actions in 2016 and subsequent years. And the district court emphasized that its order ... applied to prohibit FDA’s actions in and after 2016 in accordance with plaintiffs’ alternative arguments. As to those alternative arguments, plaintiffs’ claims are timely. Defendants have not shown that plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their timely challenges. For that reason, and as more fully explained below, defendants’ motions for a stay pending appeal are DENIED IN PART. The appeal is EXPEDITED to the next available Oral Argument...
