Advisory Opinions Justice Alito Stays Ruling on Abortion Pill by Mail
32 snips
May 5, 2026 They walk through a last-minute courtroom move keeping mail-order access to mifepristone and why the Supreme Court stepped in. They unpack standing doctrines, redressability puzzles, and how one appellate court became the outlier. Conversation also covers Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians, geofence warrant privacy questions, and contentious nominee behavior.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Standing Is Central To The Mifepristone Fight
- David highlights that the recent unanimous 2024 Supreme Court decision found doctor-plaintiffs lacked Article III standing in an earlier Mifepristone challenge.
- He argues Louisiana's attempt to re-run the case through state standing is a strategic repeat that the Court is likely to scrutinize closely.
State Standing's Special Solicitude Has Faded
- The special solicitude for state standing from Massachusetts v. EPA has eroded as partisan state lawsuits proliferated, making Mass v. EPA an outlier today.
- Sarah argues states no longer receive consistent standing deference because both red and blue states sue opposing administrations frequently.
Why Louisiana's Medicaid Claim May Fail Standing
- Louisiana's pocketbook standing claim relied on $92,000 in Medicaid bills for two women treated after complications, but causation and redressability are weak.
- Sarah points out de-designation of FDA rule wouldn't stop out-of-state travel or mail-acquired pills, undermining redress.
