In a recent opinion column written for Slate, LPHS attorney David Coale outlines the philosophical decisions facing the Fifth Circuit in considering Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s ruling, which grants standing to the plaintiffs in claims the FDA erred in its approval of mifepristone. “If the Fifth Circuit accepts that these plaintiffs have standing to challenge the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, it will not be engaging in judicial conservatism. It will be assertively expanding the role of the federal courts in overseeing the nation’s health care system—not to mention its postal system,” writes Coale.

Coale goes on to explain that the case will require the court to choose between two ideas of what it means to be a “conservative”: political conservatism, which favors certain policy results, and judicial conservatism, which favors a particular process for making judicial decisions.

Read the commentary here.