Page:Washington v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (E.D. Wash. 2023).pdf/2

Case 1:23-cv-03026-TOR ECF No. 80 filed 04/07/23 PageID.2163 Page 2 of 31

BECERRA, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Defendants.

BEFORE THE COURT are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3), Third Parties’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief (ECF No. 52), and Third Parties’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief (ECF No. 69). The Motion for Preliminary Injunction was submitted for consideration with oral argument on March 28, 2023. Kristin Beneski, Colleen M. Melody, and Noah G. Purcell appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Noah T. Katzen, Aravind Sreenath, and Molly Smith appeared on behalf of Defendants. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein, and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3) is granted in part, Third Parties’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief (ECF No. 52) is denied, and Third Parties’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief (ECF No. 69) is denied.

BACKGROUND

This case concerns federal regulation of mifepristone used in connection with the termination of early pregnancy. ECF No. 35. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction, asking this Court to “affirm[] “FDA’s original conclusion that mifepristone is safe and effective, preserv[e] the status quo by enjoining any

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ~ 2