Description

When the FDA openly admits it skipped its own procedural rules to fast-track the Biden administration’s post-Dobbs agenda, who exactly has the right to drag them into court over it?

This week on Rightly Decided, Laura Beth Latimer, Nathan Seltzer, and Chance Weldon bypass the cultural hair-on-fire reporting surrounding the mifepristone litigation (Danco v. Louisiana) to talk about what’s actually keeping appellate lawyers awake at night: Article III standing.

We’re tracing the legal gymnastics of standing—from the controversial "special solicitude" granted to states in 2007’s Massachusetts v. EPA, all the way to Louisiana's current attempt to force the federal government to enforce the law.

What we’re covering: 

• The 10,000-Foot View: How the Biden Administration's post-Dobbs push to "pull every lever" led to bypassing the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and FDA patient safety protocols. 
• The Standing Problem: Why an emergency room doctor doesn't have the standing to sue the FDA, but Louisiana thinks it does. 
• Shadow Docket Chaos: What a "stay of a stay" actually means on the ground for drug manufacturers and state laws. 
• The Dissents: Why Justice Alito wanted to hit the brakes, and Justice Thomas’s one-page mic-drop invoking the Comstock Act to point out a problem of criminal proportions.

If you want to understand the actual mechanics of how the administrative state gets challenged in federal court, let’s get into it.