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
Long before the Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022), Bexis was concerned that FDCA preemption would be dragged into the country’s culture wars by the abortion issue. He hoped the Supreme Court would adhere to long-established precedent and thus keep FDCA preemption out of politics and in product liability litigation where it belonged. Dobbs extinguished that hope (and many others), so Bexis decided that he might as well embrace the inevitable.
He proposed writing his own law review article on this subject – about which he knows as much as anyone – to the Food & Drug Law Institute. FDLI accepted the proposal, and now, over a year later, the article is now published: Beck, Danziger, Johansen & Hayes, “Federal Preemption & the Post-Dobbs Reproductive Freedom Frontier,” 78(2) Food & Drug L.J. 109 (2023). The article is available to the public at the journal’s website, here. Bexis hardly did this alone, being ably assisted by three (then) Reed Smith colleagues, Philip W. Danziger, Sarah B. Johansen, and Andrew R. Hayes.Continue Reading Bexis Publishes Article Applying FDCA Preemption to Medication Abortions
Since before the Dobbs decision reversed decades of precedent on reproductive rights, we have been looking at the implications for drug and device manufacturers. See here and here. Our posts have, of course, followed the ins and outs of the notorious AHM (or Hippo) litigation as it makes its way up to the
Politics makes strange bedfellows. So does the law. Weird cases also make weird law. The Supreme Court decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, No. 21–468, — S. Ct. — , 2023 WL 3356528 (U.S. May 11, 2023) (“NPP”), evidences each of those old saws. Deciphering just what the Supreme Court held entails
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
Lawyers really like to be right. This dive into the latest on reproductive rights in the context of challenges to FDA’s regulation of a prescription medication is an instance where we wish we had not been right with some of our predictions. Back when the Dobbs decision had been leaked but not yet issued, we
Given what we saw in states such as Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Idaho even before the Supreme Court’s in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., ___ S. Ct. ___, 2022 WL 2276808 (U.S. June 24, 2022), we fully expect attempts by such states to ban FDA-approved prescription drugs that can be used to
Despite our use of plural pronouns, almost all of our posts come from a single author. We occasionally have guest posts by multiple authors or a post that pairs one of us with a subject matter expert. For this post, however, all seven authors of the Blog are joining together.
We are just simple defense