![State of Washington v. US Food & Drug Administration [Annotated]]( https://distri.podiprint.com/imagenes/978/0/9/7/9/9/2/0/9780979920561_f_675x675.jpg "State of Washington v. US Food & Drug Administration [Annotated]")
Librería Perelló (Valencia)
Librería Aciertas (Toledo)
El AlmaZen del Alquimista (Sevilla)
Librería Elías (Asturias)
Librería Kolima (Madrid)
Donde los libros
Librería Proteo (Málaga)
This opinion is annotated by Nimble Books AI and includes a Foreword by Cincinattus [AI] ; a variety of pithy, opinionated abstracts including scientific style, tldr, tldr one word, Explain It to Me Like I’m Five Years Old, and Action Items; tools for viewpoint diversity such as Dissents, Red Team Critiques, and MAGA Perspectives; a recursive summary with synopsis; and a virtual context summary. Cover art by Nimble Books AI.AI summary:This document is a court order granting in part a preliminary injunction sought by plaintiffs against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the regulation of mifepristone, a medication used for medication abortion. The court order was issued by United States District Judge Thomas O. Rice in the Eastern District of the United States on April 7, 2023. The plaintiffs argue that the FDA’s current Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for mifepristone, which includes restrictions on distribution and administration, is unnecessary and imposes undue burdens on patients and healthcare providers, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court finds that there are serious issues going to the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and that the alleged unrecoverable economic costs in this case are sufficient to demonstrate irreparable harm. The court grants the preliminary injunction in part, enjoining the FDA from enforcing the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone during the COVID-19 pandemic and maintaining the status quo of the current REMS program until a determination on the merits.The court order also denied a third party’s unopposed motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, noting that the proposed brief offered no additional legal or substantive information that was particularly helpful to the court’s findings on the present motion. The court stated that the brief may be more useful during a trial on the merits. The court directed the District Court Executive to enter the order and furnish copies to counsel. No bond shall be required pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).Overall, this document represents a legal decision in a case involving access to medication abortions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court order grants a preliminary injunction in part against the FDA’s current REMS program for mifepristone and denies a third party’s motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief.
