A Single Judge Shouldn’t Have This Kind of National Power
Updated at 2:30 p.m. ET on April 17, 2023
Last Friday, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ordered an end to the sale of mifepristone, a drug approved by the FDA 23 years ago that’s used to induce abortions, anywhere in the United States. He’s just a single judge in a small courthouse in Amarillo, Texas. Does he really have the power to dictate national policy about drug safety? If so, should he have that power?
The answer to the first question is complicated—more on that in a moment—but the answer to the second is easy. Of course he shouldn’t.
[Mary Ziegler: The Texas abortion-pill ruling signals pro-lifers’ next push]
When I ask new law students what courts are for, I’m likely to hear that they’re for “holding government accountable” or “protecting our constitutional rights.” That’s a common lay understanding: We’ve grown accustomed to judges taking center stage in national debates over abortion, health care, immigration, and other
