State judicial decisions mandated nationally.

[StringJunky]

How does a Texas judge ban a drug as though they have  jurisdiction over the whole country? I'm prompted by the abortion pill farce playing out in red state courts. For reference:

Quote

AMARILLO, Texas (AP) — A conservative federal judge in Texas heard arguments Wednesday from a Christian group seeking to overturn the Food and Drug Administration’s more than 2-decade-old approval of an abortion medication, in a case that could threaten the most common form of abortion in the U.S.

Lawyers for the group Alliance Defending Freedom asked Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk during the hearing in Amarillo, Texas, to issue an immediate order that would revoke or suspend the drug mifepristone’s approval. Such a step would be an unprecedented challenge to the FDA, which approved mifepristone in combination with a second pill as a safe and effective method for ending pregnancy in 2000. - https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pill-texas-fda-roe-wade-5306714113f3be4233a9e11a84a992aa?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=TopNews&utm_campaign=position_04

 

[swansont]

It involves a federal agency

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

How does a Texas judge ban a drug as though they have  jurisdiction over the whole country? I'm prompted by the abortion pill farce playing out in red state courts. For reference:

 

That's a United States District Court.  Federal case, as Swanson noted.  State and federal courts are entirely separate systems, so much so that for example double jeopardy laws don't apply - a person can be tried for murder in state court, be found not guilty, but then be tried for murder as a federal crime (where state lines were crossed, or federal lands or entities were involved).  This judge was appointed by Trump, is sympathetic to conservative legal causes (something no judge should openly be, ever), and so his Amarillo courtroom is a travesty waiting to happen.

[StringJunky]

Thanks chaps. I'll have to read up on the US judicial hierarchy. I'm aware of the general system but not how cases move through it between state and federal.

Edited March 15, 2023 by StringJunky

[swansont]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

That's a United States District Court.  Federal case, as Swanson noted.  State and federal courts are entirely separate systems, so much so that for example double jeopardy laws don't apply - a person can be tried for murder in state court, be found not guilty, but then be tried for murder as a federal crime (where state lines were crossed, or federal lands or entities were involved).  This judge was appointed by Trump, is sympathetic to conservative legal causes (something no judge should openly be, ever), and so his Amarillo courtroom is a travesty waiting to happen.

I think this was a case of judge shopping. Filing the case where a particular judge is likely to hear the case.

The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine incorporated in Amarillo just prior to filing the suit, and this judge hears all such cases filed there.

[npts2020]

The case shouldn't even be heard. Any other judge would throw the case out for the plaintiff's lack of standing.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

think this was a case of judge shopping. Filing the case where a particular judge is likely to hear the case.

Extremely common in Texas where governor Greg Abbotts Attorney General, Ken Paxton, knows exactly where to bring a case to get the desired red meat outcome for the base. Happens more commonly with blocking immigration policy, but is a core part of their playbook. 

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I'm aware of the general system but not how cases move through it between state and federal.

Might be easier to think of it as a federal case from the start, just one that was initiated by the head lawyer (think you call them Solicitors, or solicitor general in this context) of an individual state and filed against the US federal government itself. 

[zapatos]

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Thanks chaps. I'll have to read up on the US judicial hierarchy. I'm aware of the general system but not how cases move through it between state and federal.

The US has 51 constitutions, 51 sets of laws, and their 51 corresponding judicial systems. One for each of the 50 states plus one for the entire country (the Federal system).

Violations of state laws are tried in state courts with the state supreme court having the final say.

Violations of federal laws are tried in federal courts with the US Supreme Court having the final say.

Cases that start in State courts only move to Federal courts when there is a question of whether or not the state law in question is in violation of the US constitution.

There may be some specifics I missed in this summary and am happy to be corrected if someone else knows better. Washington D.C. is a special case but I'm not clear on how that works.

 

[TheVat]

12 hours ago, zapatos said:

Violations of federal laws are tried in federal courts with the US Supreme Court having the final say.

Cases that start in State courts only move to Federal courts when there is a question of whether or not the state law in question is in violation of the US constitution.

 

Or when there is a controversy between two or more states.  

We're going to see more of that type, with women leaving one state pregnant and returning home not pregnant, because the state they visited allowed abortion.  

Or, say, Illinois permits cleaning the hamster cage in Lake Michigan but Wisconsin does not.  When wood shavings and poo float up to Milwaukee, the Wisconsinites can't bring an action in Illinois state court.  And if there's no relevant federal law to settle it, then the federal district court decision itself becomes binding and a legal precedent.  I.e. federal courts can arbitrate, and make it stick.

(which makes clear why we need a federal law on reproductive rights)

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Or when there is a controversy between two or more states.  

 

Thanks for the additional detail!!

[TheVat]

YW.  Regarding the DC question

13 hours ago, zapatos said:

Washington D.C. is a special case but I'm not clear on how that works.

DC doesn't have much.  It's under sole jurisdiction of Congress and lacked a local government until 1973.  And all laws from that local council have to be reviewed and approved by Congress, so it's really a bad situation for the residents of DC, who are US citizens but have no Congressional representatives or local autonomy.  If there weren't nasty partisan roadblocks, DC would have been a state years ago.  A friend of mine was a journalist in DC, so I've gotten earfuls on this.  

Edited March 16, 2023 by TheVat

[swansont]

16 hours ago, zapatos said:

Violations of state laws are tried in state courts with the state supreme court having the final say.

Even that isn’t so clearly spelled out. In NY, the highest court is the Court of Appeals, which is superior to the NY Supreme Court.

(except on Tuesdays, when it’s double fizzbin)

https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/structure.shtml