UPDATE: Monday, Mar 13, 2023 · 6:17:53 PM +00:00
·
Joan McCarter
A coalition of media organizations—including the “Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, The WashingtonPost, NBCUniversal News Group, ProPublica, Inc., Texas Press Association, The Freedom ofInformation Foundation of Texas, The Markup, and Gannett Co., Inc. (the publisher of theAmarillo Globe-News and seven other Texas-based newspapers) (collectively, the ‘News MediaCoalition’)—object to Judge Kacsmaryk's secrecy in this case, and filed this request that Wednesday's hearing and future actions in the case be publicly docketed promptly.
An ultra-conservative district judge in Texas seems to be trying to take a page from the Trump majority on the U.S. Supreme Court and do his dirty work in the shadows. That’s how the highest court has delivered some of the most momentous and destructive rulings in the last few years, from the shadow docket of “emergency” requests, with no public hearings and no transparency.
The lower courts don’t have the equivalent of a shadow docket because they’re not the highest court—they’re not getting the requests for emergency orders. But that hasn’t stopped U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk from trying to craft a version of it. He’s the Trump appointee who could ban medication abortion across the nation from his seat in Amarillo, Texas, and it’s that case that he’s trying to keep out of the public eye.
The Washington Post reported over the weekend that he had taken the highly unusual step of scheduling the first hearing in the case for Wednesday without putting that hearing on the public court docket. In a conference call with attorneys on Friday, Kacsmaryk scheduled the hearing but told them he wasn’t going to put it on the docket until late the night before to try to keep the public—and abortion advocates—away. This was supposedly a move to minimize the threat to him and court personnel from protests.
RELATED: As the nation braces for Texas judge to halt abortion pill use, pregnant people face deadly risks
Kacsmaryk didn’t issue a gag order to the lawyers, The New York Times says in follow-up reporting, but asked that they keep the information secret “as a courtesy.” Amarillo is relatively isolated in rural Texas, with just a few direct flights in, and hours away from the state’s metropolitan areas. Providing essentially no notice to the public of what is supposed to be a public hearing is “very irregular,” as one person familiar with the case told the Times, “especially for a case of intense public interest.” The judge and his staff refused to provide comment to either the Post or the Times.
The hearing in question is on the injunction the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine has asked for to block the use of one abortion drug, mifepristone. The organization, which was incorporated in August in Amarillo, is suing to overturn the FDA’s approval of medication abortion entirely, but right now, will settle for ending the use of mifepristone. It is normally used in the U.S. in conjunction with a second drug, misoprostol, for safe and effective abortions. Misoprostol is approved for other medical uses, and can be used alone to induce abortion. It’s slightly less effective on its own, and is likely to cause more side effects than when used with mifepristone.
The forced birth groups, amalgamated as the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, is trying to overturn FDA authorization of both in its challenge, but for the moment, would settle for this injunction to force the FDA to reverse its approval of mifepristone and get it off the market in the 20 states where abortion is banned. That would effectively shut down the use of the drug across the country.
Notably, legal experts say that this would be “the first time that a court had acted to order that a drug be removed from the market over the objection of the F.D.A.” That’s a very slippery slope for federal courts and for public health, the politically appointed deciding what drugs the FDA gets to approve for public use.
RELATED STORIES