Top related persons:
Top related locs:
Top related orgs:

Search resuls for: "VanSickle"


8 mentions found


A federal appeals court is hearing arguments on Wednesday in a case that could determine the availability of a medication used in a majority of abortions in the country. As the hearing began in New Orleans, the three Republican-appointed judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit interjected questions and comments as lawyers from both sides presented their cases. Although the case is still in its early stages and any decision is likely to be appealed, it could ultimately have profound implications. If the initial judge’s ruling is upheld, access to medication abortion would be upended in states where abortion is legal, not just in states where bans and restrictions are in force. The F.D.A.’s regulatory authority over other drugs could be challenged with other lawsuits, and pharmaceutical companies say that uncertainty about the F.D.A.’s role could chill drug development in the United States.
The latest battle over a widely used abortion drug is set to play out on Wednesday before a conservative appeals court in New Orleans that has become the testing ground for some of the most contentious policy fights in the nation. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will weigh in on the legal status of the medication, mifepristone, used in more than half of recent abortions in the United States. “By virtually any measure, it is the most conservative appeals court in the country,” said Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas. The court, which has jurisdiction over Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, is almost certain to be skeptical of steps the Food and Drug Administration has taken to ease access to mifepristone, part of a two-pill regimen used in medication abortion. It has long been at the center of high-profile challenges to measures backed by the Obama and Biden administrations, including gun restrictions and transgender rights, and the arrival of a wave of Trump appointees has pushed it to the leading edge of potent policy decisions.
WASHINGTON — Two senators introduced a bipartisan bill on Wednesday aimed at forcing the Supreme Court to establish an ethics code after recent revelations that some justices had not disclosed gifts, travel and property deals. Senators Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a centrist Republican, introduced the legislation, which would also require the court to appoint an official to examine potential conflicts and public complaints. “We’re trying to help the court help themselves,” Mr. King said. The legislation is the latest effort by lawmakers to pressure the court to increase transparency and better police itself. Calls for an ethics code have intensified after recent reports underlined how few reporting requirements are in place and how compliance is often left to the justices themselves.
In the letter, Chief Justice Roberts attached a “statement of ethics principles and practices” signed by the current justices and included an appendix of the relevant laws that apply to judicial disclosures. The justices also said they may be limited in what to disclose because of security concerns. In a statement, Mr. Durbin said that the hearing would proceed regardless. “I am surprised that the chief justice’s recounting of existing legal standards of ethics suggests current law is adequate and ignores the obvious,” Mr. Durbin wrote. “It is time for Congress to accept its responsibility to establish an enforceable code of ethics for the Supreme Court, the only agency of our government without it.”
It is the second time in a year that the Supreme Court has considered a major effort to sharply curtail access to abortion. Less than an hour later, a federal judge in Washington State, Thomas O. The competing rulings meant that the matter was almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court. But the panel imposed several barriers to access, siding in part with Judge Kacsmaryk, while the lawsuit moved through the courts. Seeking emergency relief, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene while a fast-tracked appeal moved forward.
At issue is the availability of mifepristone, part of a two-drug regimen that now accounts for more than half of the abortions in the United States. More than five million women have used mifepristone to terminate their pregnancies in the United States, and dozens of other countries have approved the drug for use. added a series of guidelines that eased access to the pill. The restrictions would include blocking patients from receiving the drug by mail. The case could also pave the way for all sorts of challenges to the F.D.A.’s approval of medications.
WASHINGTON — Justice Clarence Thomas did not disclose that he had sold a string of properties to a longtime conservative donor from Texas in 2014, ProPublica revealed on Thursday. The transaction is the first known instance of money going directly from the billionaire donor, Harlan Crow, 73, to the justice, in what appears to be a direct violation of disclosure requirements. The revelation cast greater scrutiny on Justice Thomas, who has long raised eyebrows over questions of conflicts of interest, in part because of the political activism of his wife, Virginia Thomas. The disclosures have fueled calls by Democratic lawmakers and court transparency advocates for the justices to face tighter ethics constraints. In 2014, a real estate company linked to Mr. Crow bought a single-family home and two vacant lots on a quiet Savannah street, paying $133,363 to Justice Thomas and his family for the property, ProPublica said.
WASHINGTON — The dramatic dueling rulings by two federal district judges on Friday about access to a widely used abortion pill set up a lower court conflict that legal experts say will almost certainly send the dispute to the Supreme Court. “It really turbocharges the imperative for the Supreme Court to step in and to do so sooner rather than later,” said Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. A federal judge in Texas issued a preliminary ruling on Friday invalidating the Food and Drug Administration’s 23-year-old approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, which could make it more difficult for patients across the country to access the medication. Less than an hour later, a federal judge in Washington State issued a ruling in another case that contradicted the Texas judge by ordering the F.D.A. The Texas judge, Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, an appointee of President Donald J. Trump, stayed his order for seven days to allow the F.D.A.
Total: 8