Search for posts, channels, users, hashtags & more

DOJ Urges Dismissal Of Missouri, Idaho, And Kansas Mifepristone Challenge In Texas Court

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), represented by the Department of Justice, has filed a reply brief in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, strongly arguing for the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the States of Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas challenging the agency’s regulation of the abortion medication mifepristone.

The filing, dated May 5, 2025, is the Defendants’ reply in support of their motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed by the states, who intervened in the original case initiated by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

The government’s brief centers on several key arguments, primarily asserting that the states’ claims should be dismissed for lack of proper venue and standing, particularly following the Supreme Court’s ruling that the original plaintiffs in the case lacked standing and the subsequent voluntary dismissal of their claims.

According to the defendants’ filing, the states concede their claims, standing alone, would not establish proper venue in the Northern District of Texas.

The states had argued they could continue litigating by “piggybacking” on the venue established by the original plaintiffs at the time of intervention.

However, the FDA and DOJ contend that because the Supreme Court determined the original plaintiffs lacked standing, there was never a jurisdictionally valid lawsuit in this court for the states to intervene in and continue. The brief cites precedent suggesting intervenors cannot proceed if the original suit lacked jurisdiction or has been dismissed.

Beyond venue, the government brief argues the states’ lawsuit fails for additional “threshold reasons,” including:

  1. Lack of Article III Standing: The defendants assert the states have not demonstrated a concrete, imminent injury required to bring their case. They challenge the states’ claims of sovereign harms (interference with their legal codes, making it easier to evade state laws, abstract interest in FDA standards, effects on birthrate) and economic harms (incidental, downstream costs like increased Medicaid spending) as too speculative and attenuated to satisfy constitutional standing requirements.
  2. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies: The government argues the states failed to pursue required administrative review processes with the FDA before filing their lawsuit, a prerequisite under agency regulations and relevant statutes.
  3. Untimeliness: The defendants contend that the states’ challenge to FDA actions taken in 2016 is barred by the six-year statute of limitations, as the states sought to intervene more than six years after those actions were finalized.

The FDA and DOJ brief emphasizes that allowing the states to continue litigating in the Northern District of Texas would be inappropriate given the lack of connection of the states’ claims to the district and the dismissal of the original plaintiffs whose case formed the basis for intervention in this forum.

The filing requests that the court dismiss the states’ amended complaint or, in the alternative, transfer the case to a district where venue would be proper.

MORE ARTICLES - TAMPA FREE PRESS

 

TAMPA FREE PRESS

Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.

Android Users: Download our free app to stay up-to-date on the latest news.

Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.

Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.