Case 1:23-cv-03026-TOR ECF No. 80 filed 04/07/23 PageID.2186 Page 25 of 31
what restrictions are necessary to ensure drugs are safe.” ECF No. 51 at 32. The Court agrees with this general premise, but the allegations in this case are that FDA made findings (or failed to make findings) that the Court does not defer to, i.e. those contrary to law and those that are arbitrary and capricious. Thus, this argument does not strongly favor Defendants. Based on the public health and administrative considerations at issue in this case, Plaintiffs have shown the balance of the equities sharply tip in their favor and the public interest favors a preliminary injunction.
The Court finds Plaintiffs have satisfied the “alternative” Cottrell test. At this point, the Court will issue a status quo preliminary injunction but not a mandatory preliminary injunction.
- D. Relief
The Court turns to Plaintiffs’ remedy. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ requested relief exceeds any permissible scope where Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining “any action to remove mifepristone from the market or otherwise cause the drug to become less available.” ECF No. 51 at 33–36. Plaintiffs counter that an order enjoining Defendants from the following is appropriate: “(1) enforcing the 2023 REMS, and (2) changing the status quo to make mifepristone less available in the Plaintiff States.” ECF No. 60 at 19.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ~ 25
