23-10362
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:22-CV-223
UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Before Haynes,[* 1] Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:
For the reasons given below, IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motions for a stay pending appeal are GRANTED IN PART. At this preliminary stage, and based on our necessarily abbreviated review, it appears that the statute of limitations bars plaintiffs’ challenges to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone in 2000. In the district court, however, plaintiffs brought a series of alternative arguments regarding FDA’s actions in 2016 and subsequent years. And the district court emphasized that its order separately applied to prohibit FDA’s actions in and after 2016 in accordance with plaintiffs’ alternative arguments. As to those alternative arguments, plaintiffs’ claims are timely. Defendants have not shown that plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their timely challenges. For that reason, and as more fully explained below, defendants’ motions for a stay pending appeal are DENIED IN PART. Defendants’ alternative motions for an administrative stay are DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the appeal is DENIED. The appeal is EXPEDITED to the next available Oral Argument Calendar.
- ↑ Judge Haynes concurs only in part: she concurs in the grant of the expedited appeal and the denial of the motion to dismiss. With respect to the request for a stay of the district court’s order, as a member of the motions panel, she would grant an administrative stay for a brief period of time and defer the question of the stay pending appeal to the oral argument merits panel which receives this case.
2
