SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
matthew kacsmaryk
Conservative Texas District Court Won't Implement Anti-Judge Shopping Policy
The chief judge of the Northern District of Texas indicated the court will not follow new guidance, while a lower court judge called out a pro-business group's use of "judge shopping."
Mar 31, 2024
Right-wing groups will still be able to pick and choose the judges who hear their cases in one of the most conservative federal court districts in the United States, following a decision by the Northern District of Texas on Friday that goes against new anti-"judge shopping" guidance.
Chief U.S. District Judge David Godbey of the Northern District wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer that the court would not abide by new guidance from the Judicial Conference, which said earlier this month that the court system should randomly assign lawsuits to any judge throughout the district where they're filed.
"The consensus was not to make any change to our case assignment process at this time," wrote Godbey, an appointee of former President George W. Bush.
The policy, announced on March 12, would require lawsuits that challenge federal or state laws to be assigned to a judge randomly throughout a federal district rather than staying in the specific smaller division where they were initially filed, a practice known as "judge shopping" or "venue shopping."
The practice has garnered scrutiny in recent months as right-wing groups have filed numerous lawsuits in the court of Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who presides over a federal court in Amarillo, Texas—also in the state's Northern District.
Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, ruled last year that the Food and Drug Administration's approval of mifepristone, a drug used for medication abortion, should be suspended. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in an appeal last week, and the justices signaled that they were unlikely to impose new restrictions on the medication.
After Republican lawmakers wrote to federal judges telling them to disregard the Judicial Conference's guidance—which the body noted is discretionary—Schumer called on the courts to apply the new reforms to stop "extremists" from handpicking judges.
Godbey's letter signaled that the court will continue allowing conservative plaintiffs to select the venue where their cases are heard.
Judiciary observers noted that another judge in the Northern District—Mark Pittman in the Fort Worth division—suggested that chief judges may not have the final word on whether judge shopping continues to be tolerated.
Pittman, who was also appointed by Trump, ruled that a case filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other banking industry groups against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) should be transferred to a federal court in Washington, D.C.
The judge agreed with the CFPB, which had argued the banking lobby had filed its lawsuit over the bureau's slashing of credit card late fees in the Northern District of Texas in order to secure a favorable ruling.
"Venue is not a continental breakfast; you cannot pick and choose on a plaintiff's whim where and how a lawsuit is filed," said Pittman. "Federal courts have consistently cautioned against such behavior."
"Even the judges you least expect," said David Dayen of The American Prospect, "are pissed at being pawns in a conservative game."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Abortion Rights and the Cold, Dead Hand of Anthony Comstock
Anti-abortion activists want to use the Comstock Act to ban all abortions in the nation, and most birth control pills and devices as a bonus.
Mar 27, 2024
Yesterday’s Supreme Court session was a loud and persistent warning: America needs to pay attention.
During oral arguments, the Comstock Act was invoked repeatedly by Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Erin Hawley, the wife of Republican Senator Josh Hawley, who was arguing before the court that the abortion drug, Mifepristone, should be banned nationwide.
Now that it’s fairly clear the “sad doctors” argument before the court yesterday was so pathetically weak they can’t use it to ban Mifepristone, anti-abortion activists are talking about finding a case they can push up to the court next year that will allow it to ban all abortions in the nation, and most birth control pills and devices as a bonus.
How do they plan to do it? With the Comstock Act. You could see and hear the set-up of this future court case in Yesterday’s arguments.
Justice Sam Alito said:
This [Comstock Act] is a prominent provision. It’s not some obscure subsection of a complicated, obscure law. Everybody in this field knew about it.
Erin Hawley was emphatic:
We don’t think that there’s any case of this court that empowers FDA to ignore other federal law. The Comstock Act says that drugs should not be mailed… either through the mail or through common carriers.
And Clarence Thomas laid out the possibility of future litigation when he essentially threatened the lawyer for Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of Mifepristone:
“How do you respond to an argument that mailing your product and advertising it would violate the Comstock Act?” He went onto note that the law “is fairly broad, and it specifically covers drugs such as yours.”
In other words, they want the act enforced today.
Bloomberg news laid it out yesterday:
“Do we think the Supreme Court majority is going to rule on the Comstock Act in this case? The answer to that is no,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California at Davis who specializes in reproductive rights. “Do we think that the Comstock Act is going to come up again at some point in the future? The answer to that is definitely.”
So, what the heck is the Comstock Act and why are Republicans trying to revive it before the Supreme Court and in threatening letters to pharmacy chains?
You’ve probably never heard of Anthony Comstock, a Civil War Union soldier and New York postmaster, who died in 1915. You need to learn about him and his legacy, however, as his long fingers are about to reach up out of the grave and wrap themselves around the necks of every American woman of childbearing years.
Anthony Comstock was a mama’s boy who hated sex. His mother died when he was 10 years old, and the shock apparently never left him; women who didn’t live up to her ideal were his open and declared enemies, as were pornography, masturbation, and abortion. He was so ignorant of sex and reproduction that he believed a visible human-like fetus developed “within seconds” of sexual intercourse.
If Hawley’s interpretation is ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court in another case more specifically tailored to it next year—which the anti-abortion movement is working on as you’re reading these words—all abortions in the United States would be ended when drugs and suction and surgical devices designed specifically for the procedure can no longer be shipped to hospitals, clinics, or physicians’ offices.
Comstock spent decades scouring the country collecting pornography, which he enthusiastically shared with men in Congress, and harassing “loose women.” For example, when he visited a belly-dancing show (then a new craze) in Chicago at the Cairo Theatre during the World’s Fair of 1893, he demanded the show be shut down.
As Amy Sohn, who wrote a brilliant Comstock biography titled The Man Who Hated Women, noted:
Despite national controversy and Comstock’s intervention, ultimately the only alteration made to the fair’s belly dancing was costuming: The dancers swapped their gauze blouses for thin woolen undershirts. The vice hunter had lost in Chicago. But he would not forget the dancers, and would have four of them arrested and fined when they came to New York that winter. New York, after all, was Comstockland.
Comstock lobbied for and shepherded through Congress a law passed on March 3, 1873 titled “An Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use.” Today we refer to it as the Comstock Act.
It’s language with regard to abortion is not at all ambiguous:
Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy, or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance… designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; and
Every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and
Every written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, or how, or from whom, or by what means any of such mentioned matters, articles, or things may be obtained or made, or where or by whom any act or operation of any kind for the procuring or producing of abortion will be done or performed, or how or by what means abortion may be produced, whether sealed or unsealed; and
Every paper, writing, advertisement, or representation that any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing may, or can, be used or applied for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and
Every description calculated to induce or incite a person to so use or apply any such article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing—
Is declared to be nonmailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier.
The penalty is also not ambiguous. Persons mailing information about abortion, or drugs or devices to produce an abortion:
S]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.
The Biden administration argues that the Comstock Act of 1873 was set aside almost a century ago.
And, indeed, in 1930, the Appeals Court for the Second Circuit ruled in Youngs Rubber Corp. v. C.I. Lee & Co that the law couldn’t apply to things sent through the mail that are legal, even if they were illegal at the time of the passage of the Comstock Act. (The case involved condoms manufactured by Youngs Rubber.)
“Such a construction,” the court wrote, “would prevent mailing to or by a physician of any drug or mechanical device ‘adapted’ for contraceptive or abortifacient uses, although the physician desired to use or to prescribe it for proper medical purposes.”
The law has been amended by Congress four times (in 1955, 1958, 1971, and 1994), but the language above was never struck because legislators figured the 1930 appeals court’s ruling rendered it nugatory.
But don’t tell that to Trump’s appointee, Texas District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Amarillo, who ruled last year that Mifipristone was to be banned nationwide: He based a large part of his decision on the plain language of the Comstock Act.
And don’t tell it to the three right-wing judges who heard the appeal of Kacsmaryk’s decision before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on its way to SCOTUS.
When the Biden administration’s attorney argued before the Fifth Circuit that Kacsmaryk’s decision, based largely on the Comstock Act, was “unprecedented,” Circuit Judge James Ho—also a Trump appointee, who personally swore his good friend Kacsmaryk into his office, and whose wife is a paid anti-abortion activist—interrupted her with a curt snap, saying:
I guess I’m just wondering why not just focus on the facts of this case rather than have this sort of “FDA can do no wrong” theme.
That appeals court, made up of a George W. Bush appointee and two Trump appointees, earlier had ruled in their preliminary finding to hear the case that they disagreed with the Biden administration’s assertion that, to quote the three judges, “the [Comstock] law does not mean what it says it means.”
When the Biden interpretation of the Comstock Act was brought up in oral arguments, the Bush appointee, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, said there is “some disagreement” about whether previous court rulings actually invalidated the law. After all, it’s never been adjudicated before the Supreme Court and is still on the books.
This battle promises to be long and hard-fought, and the only solution will be for Congress to take this gun out of Republicans’ hands by overturning the Comstock Act itself.
Republican members of Congress agree, and want the Comstock Act enforced nationwide now. They think they don’t even need a ruling from the Supreme Court: They just need a Republican president.
In a letter sent to CVS (among other pharmacy chains), Mississippi Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith and eight other Republican senators (Lankford, Daines, Braun, Rubio, Marshall, Risch, Crapo and Blackburn) wrote that the Biden interpretation (and that of Congress in 1955, 1958, 1971, and 1994) is wrong.
They explicitly asserted that the Comstock Act is still in effect and they want it enforced:
“We write to express our support and agreement with 21 [Republican] state attorneys general,” they wrote “who have reminded you that Federal law in 18 U.S.C. 1461-1462 [the Comstock Act] criminalizes nationwide using the mail, or interstate shipment by any express company or common carrier, to send or receive any drug that is ‘designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.’”
The 1930 court ruling that lawmakers and judges had, for over 90 years, believed only applied the Comstock Act to items that were illegal (like child porn), Senator Hide-Smith wrote:
[D]oes not protect CVS or any other individual or entity from being prosecuted within the five-year statute of limitations for the illegal mailing or interstate shipment of abortion drugs… even for conduct that occurs today.
Keep in mind, under the plain language of the Comstock Act this could also apply to birth control pills, IUDs, and other things used to prevent pregnancy. And, of course, pornography.
The lawyer for Republicans defending Kacsmaryk’s ruling, Erin Hawley, went so far as to assert before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that even physicians and pharmacies shouldn’t be able to receive Mifipristone or other drugs that could produce an abortion via the mail, FedEx, or UPS:
What the Comstock law says is that it is improper to mail things that induce or cause abortions, which is precisely the action the FDA took in 2021 when it permitted the mailing of abortion drugs.
If Hawley’s interpretation is ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court in another case more specifically tailored to it next year—which the anti-abortion movement is working on as you’re reading these words—all abortions in the United States would be ended when drugs and suction and surgical devices designed specifically for the procedure can no longer be shipped to hospitals, clinics, or physicians’ offices.
This is no idle threat.
As Washington Post reporter Dan Diamond wrote for his Substack newsletter, anti-abortion activist Mark Lee Dickson, who’s helped several cities around the country put into law local versions of the Comstock Act, told him:
If a future president were to enforce these federal statutes, then they could shut down every abortion facility in America.
This is the specific goal of these mostly Catholic religious fanatics: to completely outlaw all abortion and radically restrict access to birth control. And they are not going to give up just because it looks like the Supreme Court isn’t going to ban Mifepristone this year.
Such a case would, based on what they said yesterday, have Republicans in the Senate, Clarence Thomas, and Sam Alito gleefully rubbing their hands in anticipation.
This battle promises to be long and hard-fought, and the only solution will be for Congress to take this gun out of Republicans’ hands by overturning the Comstock Act itself.
And that’s unlikely to happen unless or until Democrats take back the House, hold the White House, and gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (or kill the filibuster).
The stakes this fall couldn’t be higher.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Abortion Defenders Decry 'Baseless' Attack on Mifepristone as SCOTUS Hears Case
"The overturn of Roe was just the first step in the far right's relentless campaign to restrict women's reproductive freedom," said one advocate. "We always knew they would come for medication abortion, too."
Mar 26, 2024
As the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case brought by right-wing activists seeking to sharply limit access to a commonly used abortion pill, reproductive rights advocates renewed warnings that Republicans' endgame isn't just making abortion a states' rights issue, but rather forcing a nationwide ban on all forms of the medical procedure.
Thehigh court justices—including six conservatives, half of them appointed by former President Donald Trump, the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—are hearing oral arguments in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a case brought by the right-wing Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of anti-abortion doctors. The case involves the abortion pill known by the generic name mifepristone, which was first approved by the FDA in 2000 as part of a two-drug protocol to terminate early-stage pregnancies.
"If the Supreme Court refuses to follow the evidence and imposes medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone, it will be just another stepping stone in the anti-abortion movement's end goal of a nationwide ban on abortion."
"Mifepristone has been used by millions of women over the last 20 years, and its safety and effectiveness have been well-documented," said Jamila Taylor, president and CEO of the Institute for Women's Policy Research. "The drug has taken on even greater importance for women's health since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and the far right has moved to block women's access to healthcare at every turn."
In a dubious practice known as "judge shopping," the plaintiffs filed their complaint in Amarillo, Texas, where Matthew Kacsmaryk, the sole federal district judge and a Trump appointee, ruled last April that the FDA's approval of mifepristone was illegal. Shortly after Kacsmaryk's ruling, a federal judge in Washington state issued a contradictory decision that blocked the FDA from removing mifepristone from the market. The U.S. Department of Justice subsequently appealed Kacsmaryk's ruling.
Later in April 2023, the Supreme Court issued a temporary order that allowed mifepristone to remain widely available while legal challenges continued. A three-judge panel of the right-wing 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last August that the FDA's 2016 move to allow mifepristone to be taken later in pregnancy, mailed directly to patients, and prescribed by healthcare professionals other than doctors, was likely illegal. However, the court also allowed the pill to remain on the market pending the outcome of litigation.
In an analysis of the case published Tuesday, jurist Amy Howe explained:
There are three separate questions before the justices on Tuesday. The first one is whether the challengers have a legal right to sue, known as standing, at all. The FDA maintains that they do not, because the individual doctors do not prescribe mifepristone and are not obligated to do anything as a result of the FDA's decision to allow other doctors to prescribe the drug.
The court of appeals held that the medical groups have standing because of the prospect that one of the groups' members might have to treat women who had been prescribed mifepristone and then suffered complications—which, the FDA stresses, are "exceedingly rare"—requiring emergency care. But the correct test, the FDA and [mifepristone maker] Danco maintain, is not whether the groups' members will suffer a possible injury, but an imminent injury.
Destiny Lopez, acting co-CEO of the Guttmacher Institute, called the plaintiffs' claims "baseless."
"If the Supreme Court refuses to follow the evidence and imposes medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone, it will be just another stepping stone in the anti-abortion movement's end goal of a nationwide ban on abortion," she said on Tuesday. "As the court weighs its decision, let's be clear that the only outcome that respects facts and science is maintaining full access to mifepristone."
As more than 20 states have banned or restricted abortion since the Supreme Court's June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling overturnedRoe v. Wade and voided half a century of federal abortion rights, people have increasingly turned to medication abortion to terminate unwanted pregnancies. And while Republicans have often claimed that overturning Roe was not meant to ban all abortions but merely to leave the issue up to the states, GOP-authored forced pregnancy bills and statements by Republican lawmakers and candidates including Trump—who last week endorsed a 15-week national ban—belie conservatives' goal of nationwide prohibition.
Project 2025, a coalition of more than 100 right-wing groups including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and other anti-abortion organizations, wants to require the FDA to ban drugs used for medication abortions, protect employers who refuse to include contraceptive coverage in insurance plans, and increase surveillance of abortion and maternal mortality reporting. The coalition is reportedly drafting executive orders through which Trump, if reelected, could roll back Biden administration policies aimed at protecting and expanding abortion access.
"The overturn of Roe was just the first step in the far right's relentless campaign to restrict women's reproductive freedom. We always knew they would come for medication abortion, too," Taylor said. "But conservatives seeking to block access to mifepristone are not concerned about women's safety; they want to block all abortion options for women and prevent them from making their own reproductive decisions, even in their own homes."
Right-wing groups including the Heritage Foundation have been pressing Trump to invoke the Comstock laws, a series of anti-obscenity statutes passed in 1873 during the Ulysses S. Grant administration. One of the laws outlawed using the U.S. Postal Service to send contraceptives and punished offenders with up to five years' hard labor. Named after Victorian-era anti-vice crusader and U.S. postal inspector Anthony Comstock, the laws were condemned by progressives of the day, with one syndicated newspaper editorial accusing Comstock of striking "a dastard's blow at liberty and law in the United States."
Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern said Tuesday that far-right Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—who wrote the majority opinion in Dobbs—"are clearly eager to revive the Comstock Act as a nationwide ban on medication abortion, and maybe procedural abortion, too."
"That would subject abortion providers in all 50 states to prosecution and imprisonment," he added. "No congressional action needed."
Progressive U.S. lawmakers joined reproductive rights advocates in rallying outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
"Mifepristone is safe and effective and has been used in our country for decades," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.). "These far-right justices need to stop legislating from the bench."
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) asserted that "medication abortion is safe, effective, and routine healthcare."
"Over half of U.S. abortions are done this way and we have decades of scientific evidence to back up its safety," she added. "SCOTUS must protect access to mifepristone and we must affirm abortion care as the human right that it is."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular