Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs v. Sebelius | |
---|---|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
Decided | 2012 |
Citation(s) | 671 F.3d 1275 |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Judith W. Rogers and Stephen F. Williams |
Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs v. Sebelius, 671 F.3d 1275 (D.C. Cir. 2012), was a 2012 case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, holding that opponents of thimerosal-preserved vaccines lacked standing to challenge determinations by the Food and Drug Administration that the vaccines and their components were safe and effective. The named defendant in the case, Kathleen Sebelius, was the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the department with authority over the FDA.
The opinion was written by Brett Kavanaugh, then a judge of the D.C. Circuit. A review on SCOTUSblog provided the case as an example of the fact that "[e]ven when Kavanaugh rejects a claim, he sometimes uses his discussion of standing to show that he has heard the plaintiff's argument and taken it seriously". [1] Bloomberg noted that "Kavanaugh's opinion for the court repeatedly went out of its way to show it respected the Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs's (CoMeD) 'genuine concern' regarding thimerosal", but nevertheless "said the coalition was required to seek a ban through the executive or legislative branches". [2] Kavanaugh's opinion, joined by Judith W. Rogers and Stephen F. Williams, therefore rejected the challenge on standing grounds. [1] The court further found it irrelevant that thimerosal was included in some versions of mandated vaccines, because it was possible for those seeking to avoid the ingredient to receive thimerosal-free vaccines.
Legally and stylistically, the case greatly resembled Kavanaugh's 2024 opinion as Justice on the Supreme Court in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine , finding a similar lack of standing by a group of physicians seeking to overturn FDA approval of the abortion-drug Mifepristone. Kavanaugh also cited Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs in his Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine decision. [3]
Thiomersal (INN), or thimerosal, also sold under the name merthiolate is an organomercury compound. It is a well-established antiseptic and antifungal agent.
Thiomersal is a mercury compound which is used as a preservative in some vaccines. Anti-vaccination activists promoting the incorrect claim that vaccination causes autism have asserted that the mercury in thiomersal is the cause. There is no scientific evidence to support this claim. The idea that thiomersal in vaccines might have detrimental effects originated with anti-vaccination activists and was sustained by them and especially through the action of plaintiffs' lawyers.
Timothy Michael Tymkovich is an American lawyer who has served as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit since 2003; serving as chief judge from 2015 to 2022. In November 2023, he was designated by Chief Justice John Roberts to serve as a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.
The Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, popularly known as "vaccine court", administers a no-fault system for litigating vaccine injury claims. These claims against vaccine manufacturers cannot normally be filed in state or federal civil courts, but instead must be heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, sitting without a jury.
Brett Michael Kavanaugh is an American lawyer and jurist serving as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President Donald Trump on July 9, 2018, and has served since October 6, 2018. He was previously a U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2006 to 2018.
Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation. They include challenges by states against the ACA, reactions from legal experts with respect to its constitutionality, several federal court rulings on the ACA's constitutionality, the final ruling on the constitutionality of the legislation by the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and notable subsequent lawsuits challenging the ACA. The Supreme Court upheld ACA for a third time in a June 2021 decision.
King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services was a lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation as a constitutional challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The plaintiffs claimed that the ACA's enactment violated the Origination Clause of the Constitution. The suit was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and the dismissal was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The plaintiffs sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear an appeal.
Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals ruling in Zubik v. Burwell and the six cases it had consolidated under that title and returned them to their respective courts of appeals for reconsideration.
Extensive investigation into vaccines and autism has shown that there is no relationship between the two, causal or otherwise, and that vaccine ingredients do not cause autism. Vaccinologist Peter Hotez researched the growth of the false claim and concluded that its spread originated with Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent 1998 paper, with no prior paper supporting a link.
Vaccination policy of the United States is the subset of U.S. federal health policy that deals with immunization against infectious disease. It is decided at various levels of the government, including the individual states. This policy has been developed over the approximately two centuries since the invention of vaccination with the purpose of eradicating disease from the U.S. population, or creating a herd immunity. Policies intended to encourage vaccination impact numerous areas of law, including regulation of vaccine safety, funding of vaccination programs, vaccine mandates, adverse event reporting requirements, and compensation for injuries asserted to be associated with vaccination.
Shular v. United States, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is an opinion of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that, under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, the definition of “serious drug offense” only requires that the state offense involve the conduct specified in the statute. Unlike other provisions of the ACCA, it does not require that state courts develop “generic” version of a crime, which describe the elements of the offense as they are commonly understood, and then compare the crime being charged to that generic version to determine whether the crime qualifies under the ACCA for purposes of penalty enhancement. The decision states that offenses defined under the ACCA are "unlikely names for generic offenses," and are therefore unambiguous. This renders the rule of lenity inapplicable.
California v. Texas, 593 U.S. 659 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), colloquially known as Obamacare. It was the third such challenge to the ACA seen by the Supreme Court since its enactment. The case in California followed after the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and the change to the tax penalty amount for Americans without required insurance that reduced the "individual mandate" to zero, effective for months after December 31, 2018. The District Court of the Northern District of Texas concluded that this individual mandate was a critical provision of the ACA and that, with a penalty amount equal to zero, some or all of the ACA was potentially unconstitutional as an improper use of Congress's taxation powers.
Before Election Day of the 2020 United States presidential election, lawsuits related to the voting process were filed in various states. Many of these lawsuits were related to measures taken by state legislatures and election officials in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with standing under Article III of the Constitution related to class-action suits against private defendants. In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that only those that can show concrete harm have standing to seek damages against private defendants.
American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case relating to administrative law. The case centered on a rule from the Department of Health and Human Services, which reduced reimbursement rates for certain hospitals. Several hospital associations and hospitals affected by the rule sued HHS, alleging that it exceeded its statutory authority. The court was tasked with deciding if the rule was a reasonable interpretation of the law, and if the statute blocked judicial review of the rule in the first place.
Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was an immigration decision by the United States Supreme Court. In a 6–3 decision authored by Neil Gorsuch, the Court ruled against the federal government, holding that deportation hearing notices need to be in a single document. Although a highly technical case, the decision received attention for being predicated on the single-letter word a.
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Dormant Commerce Clause.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine was a United States Supreme Court case to challenge the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s approval of mifepristone, a drug frequently used in medical abortion procedures. The plaintiffs, led by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM), argued that the FDA did not properly approve the use of the drug mifepristone for pregnancy termination under Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act regulations and asked for an injunction to withdraw the drug's approval, thus removing it from the market. AHM's suit followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in 2022, which reversed Roe v. Wade and asserted there was no constitutional right to abortion at the federal level, leading conservative states and groups to further restrict abortion access.