Garnet Henderson

I had the same thought, especially because the demands were so numerous. The DOJ attorney also said "other subpoena recipients have answered subpoenas" but that is similarly vague

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION THE STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Intervenor Plaintiffs, v. U.S. FOOD AND DRUGmADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants, and DANCO LABORATORIES, et al., Intervenor Defendants. No. 4:25-CV-01580-CMS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO DISMISS THE CASE docket here https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71733114/state-of-missouri-v-us-food-and-drug-administration/?order_by=desc

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 Background ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Standard of Review ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Argument ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 I. The Court Should Stay This Case Pending FDA’s Mifepristone REMS Review. ...................... 8 II. Alternatively, the Court Should Dismiss the Case ..........................................................................9 A. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction ........................................................................ 9 1. FDA’s actions do not cause “sovereign harm” ..................................................10 2. The States’ alleged pocketbook injuries do not establish standing ..................12 3. The States cannot sue the Federal Government as parens patriae .....................13 B. Intervenor Plaintiffs failed to administratively exhaust their claims .............................14 C. Challenges to the 2016 Action are time-barred ...............................................................15 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................15

NEW: FDA asks Missouri judge to either 1) pause lawsuit seeking to end telehealth Rx of abortion pill mifepristone; reimpose tons of outdated restrictions or 2) dismiss it. FDA didn't seek dismissal in separate Louisiana case and can restrict mife on its own
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Whoops, sorry, on second listen it was actually, "There is undoubtedly a genuine investigation that is genuinely happening." 👍

Take any claims from this DOJ with a massive grain of salt, but um, yikes

Autonomy News A worker-owned reproductive rights and justice publication.

That's it for oral arguments. I have a story on this appeal, and the effects the Trump administration's actions are having on providers of gender-affirming care more broadly, coming up at @autonomynews.co. Subscribe today to read it first!

She also said "this is a legitimate investigation that is legitimately ongoing." Very convincing

DOJ attorney claims that the DOJ has received "hundreds of thousands of pages" of documents in response to gender-affirming care subpoenas, suggesting that institutions that did not challenge the subpoenas complied with them.

In response to a question from Bress, Ramer says the QueerDoc case is the first one to be heard by an appellate court because the DOJ asked to expedite it. Seven of the 20 subpoenas have been challenged so far; four are before appellate courts. The QueerDoc case is the first to have oral arugments.

Ramer is pointing out (as she has many times) that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act—which is the law the DOJ says it's investigating violations of—regulates the distribution of drugs, not medical care, provider interactions with patients, or off-label prescriptions.

The district court's opinion leaned heavily on Trump & Bondi's public statements about wanting to end gender-affirming care, finding that to be evidence that the investigatory subpoenas were improper and designed to intimidate. The two Republican appointees here do not seem amenable to that argument

Bea asks if it's improper for the DOJ to issue subpoenas to carry out the president's policy priorities (i.e. ending gender-affirming care). Ramer says no, but the subpoenas are improper because they're pretextual. Meaning, essentially, that DOJ's justifications for the subpoenas are dishonest.

Paula Ramer, arguing for QueerDoc, starts by pointing out that the Trump admin issued 20 identical subpoenas to providers of gender-affirming care.

Bea (Bush appointee) asks if QueerDoc's offer to mail medications to patients using a different name could be evidence of conspiracy. DOJ attorney says it could be evidence of intent to conceal and brings it back again to the suggestion that QueerDoc is conspiring to misbrand medications.

Well there it is. DOJ attorney just cited the Supreme Court's decision in Skrmetti, which validated that banning gender-affirming care is a legitimate state interest. But the judges are pointing out that gender-affirming care is legal in the states their circuit covers.

Paez asks if DOJ bothered to investigate QueerDoc before issuing a subpoena. DOJ attorney says the investigation is ongoing; Paez laughs at her and says, "you can investigate without a subpoena." Many people are saying!

Bress (Trump appointee) asks if there's precedent for the government successfully subpoenaing patient records. DOJ points to just one case from 2000, where a doctor was accused of improper insurance billing. QueerDoc does not take insurance.

DOJ attorney claims they're *not* going after QueerDoc for off-label prescribing. They're arguing that manufacturers are engaging in off-label advertising. But QueerDoc is not a manufacturer, so they're alleging QueerDoc may be engaging in conspiracy to violate drug labeling laws.

DOJ is alleging that QueerDoc is "misbranding" drugs. Paez is correctly pointing out that it's normal for doctors to prescribe drugs off-label.

Paez (Clinton appointee) cut the DOJ attorney off about 90 seconds into her arugment. DOJ is trying to make sort of a "slippery slope" argument (suggesting this case could set a precedent that would result in all administrative subpoenas getting quashed) and he's not having it.

QueerDoc is up and the Trump appointee had to read the case name, lol

This same panel of judges will be considering THREE other asylum appeals from citizens of Ecuador, Guatemala, and Venezuela, though those cases have already been submitted and won't have oral arguments.

Second case is Rocha Rodriguez et al. v. Bondi, another appeal of asylum denial, this time from citizens of Mexico.

"No one's really looking to kill this guy," says the DOJ lawyer about a man whose wife was assaulted in the presence of a small child by people looking for him. 👍

First case is Panda et al. v. Bondi, a case where several citizens of Angola are appealing an immigration court's denial of their asylum claims. All three judges, including the Trump appointee, are tearing the DOJ lawyer up.

It's a three judge panel: Richard Paez (Clinton appointee), Carlos Bea (George W. Bush appointee), and Daniel Bress (Trump appointee)

Arguments will be streaming here. Court is in session, but the QueerDoc case is one of several being argued today:

The DOJ Subpoenaed Patient Info From a Gender-Affirming Care Clinic. It Fought Back. A Washington judge quashed the Trump administration's attempt to subpoena patient information from the telehealth practice QueerDoc—but the fight may not be over.

Late last year I covered the case of QueerDoc, a small, telehealth gender-affirming care practice that received a subpoena from Trump's DOJ. The subpoena was blocked by a federal judge, but the DOJ appealed, and the 9th Circuit is hearing oral arguments today.

Texas Medical Students: Abortion Provider’s Canceled Talk Is Dangerous Escalation Texas Tech’s recent capitulation to Turning Point USA isn’t just censorship—it’s a threat to patients’ health.

Texas Tech University recently canceled a speech by third-trimester abortion provider Dr. Shelley Sella because of a Turning Point USA pressure campaign. Hear directly from Texas medical students about how this affects their education and patients' safety at @autonomynews.co:

ICE detains reporter Estefany Rodríguez in Nashville - Nashville Banner Reporter Estefany Rodríguez, detained by ICE with no arrest warrant, may face deportation. Her attorneys seek immediate review of the legality of her case.

Another reporter arrested by ICE. Estefany Rodríguez, a reporter for Nashville Noticias and Univision 42 Nashville, faced death threats in Colombia, came to the U.S. legally and had applied for asylum. Now she is being sent back. Nashville Banner got the story

nashvillebanner.com/2026/03/05/j...

Absolutely the correct idea, but $100 is really a pittance