We recently examined one possible beneficial impact of the Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024) – that it could bring about critical re-examination of the FDA’s questionably supported ban on truthful off-label speech.
Well here’s another one: Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S.
The Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024), has generated more commentary than anyone could possibly read. Reed Smith alone has issued four Loper Bright alerts and established a resource center. Overall, we think that Loper Bright’s assertion that judges know better than administrative agencies how to interpret and apply those agencies’ organic statutes smacks of judicial triumphalism. However, it is what it is, and we’ll be living with it for some time.
Loper Bright essentially tells courts to ignore administrative interpretations and to give statutes “the reading the court would have reached if no agency were involved,” 144 S. Ct. at 2266 (citation and quotation marks omitted). One thing that we (and Mark Herrmann, who first suggested this topic) haven’t seen in any commentary on Loper Bright are the implications of that mandate on the FDA’s questionable basis for its ban on all “off-label promotion” – particularly truthful off-label speech – by the firms it regulates.Continue Reading Could Loper Bright Finally Do in FDA’s Rickety Off-Label Speech Ban?
Standing should not be a political issue. Ensuring that someone who initiates a lawsuit has enough of a connection to the alleged harm for which they seek redress from a court is a key part of the broader constitutional concept of justiciability. Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, they cannot decide just any
Bexis recently gave the keynote address at the Minnesota State Bar Association’s annual FDA Forum. In preparing his speech, which concerned recent challenges to FDA regulatory authority, Bexis had occasion to study Apter v. Dep’t of HHS, 80 F.4th 579 (5th Cir. 2023), which the blog previously discussed here. Since Bexis was discussing
We have been following – and commenting about − the unprecedented attacks on the FDA’s authority to approve drugs (and by extension all the products the agency regulates) in the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA litigation pretty much since the first bizarre district court rulings about a year ago in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, 668 F. Supp.3d 507 (N.D. Tex. 2023), aff’d in part & vacated in part, 78 F.4th 210 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. granted in part and denied in part, 144 S. Ct. 537 (2023) (hereafter “AHM I” and AHM II”).Continue Reading A Couple of Thoughts about the Comstock Act
We generally keep our distance from medical cannabis/marijuana. We’re not one of those blogs. But if legal holdings of interest to us happens to involve cannabis, we will comment. Thus, we bring you Schmidt v. Schmidt, Kirifides & Rassias, PC, ___ A.3d ___, 2023 WL 7502499 (Pa. Commw. Nov. 14, 2023), holding that
Sometimes there are decisions that we begin to read with an expectation—perhaps based on a thumbnail from Bexis—that we will have a strong impression. Not surprisingly, the expected impression is usually negative. This was the case with Apter v. HHS, No. 22-40802, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 23401 (5th Cir. Sept. 1, 2023), which concerned
When we last commented on the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA litigation, back in April, the United States Supreme Court had just stayed what we described as “a truly ridiculous decision purporting to invalidate a number of actions taken by FDA with regard to mifepristone, the only currently marketed approved medication for medical abortion.”
Attempting to stay up on every filing in every medication abortion case could be a full-time job these days. We have one of those already, so we tend to stick to court rulings. The filings in the Fifth Circuit on the AHM appeal are something of an exception. In addition to party briefs, the
The federal government cannot compel pharmaceutical manufacturers to sell prescription drugs at a discount to unlimited numbers of pharmacies. That is the takeaway from the Third Circuit’s recent opinion in Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, No. 21-3167, 2023 WL 1098017 (3d. Cir. Jan. 30, 2023) (to