Texas judge told lawyers to maintain key hearing date quiet

Citing death threats and harassing phone calls, the federal judge who’s presiding over a pivotal case that might resolve the longer term of the abortion pill within the U.S. asked attorneys to not publicize the date of a key hearing, telling them “less commercial is healthier.”

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. Northern District of Texas held a telephone conference with attorneys within the case on Friday through which he set oral arguments for Wednesday morning. But Kacsmaryk asked the attorneys to not publicize the hearing, citing security concerns.

“And since of limited security resources and staffing, I’ll ask that the parties avoid further publicizing the date of the hearing,” Kacsmaryk told the attorneys, based on a court transcript of the conference call.

“This is just not a gag order but only a request for courtesy given the death threats and harassing phone calls and voicemails that this division has received,” the judge said.

“We wish a fluid hearing with all parties being heard. I believe less commercial of this hearing is healthier,” Kacsmaryk said, adding that he didn’t want an “unnecessary circus-like atmosphere.”

Kacsmaryk joined the court in 2019 after he was appointed by former President Donald Trump. His appointment was opposed by Senate Democrats in addition to Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who supports abortion rights. His nomination was also opposed by abortion and LGBTQ rights groups equivalent to Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign.

Those present on the Friday conference call included lawyers from the Justice Department, the abortion pill maker Danco Laboratories, and a gaggle that opposes abortion called the Alliance Defending Freedom.

An attorney from the Justice Department, Julie Straus Harris, asked the judge whether the date of the hearing can be made public on the court docket. Kacsmaryk responded that he would make it public on Tuesday however it “may even be after business hours,” shortly before the Wednesday morning hearing.

The judge has set oral arguments within the case for 9 a.m. CT on the U.S. courthouse in Amarillo, Texas. The hearing can be open to the general public. The Washington Post first reported that Kacsmaryk desired to delay public disclosure of the hearing, citing people aware of the matter.

Although Kacsmaryk sought to delay publicizing the date of the hearing until late Tuesday, media outlets sent a letter to the court Monday urging the judge to right away disclose the date. The court disclosed the date of the hearing on the docket later that afternoon.

The media outlets included NBCUniversal News Group, of which CNBC is part; The Washington Post, ProPublica, the Texas Press Association, and Gannett, amongst others. Peter Steffensen of Southern Methodist University’s First Amendment Clinic on the Dedman School of Law sent the letter on behalf of the media outlets.

“The Court’s try to delay notice of and, due to this fact, limit the flexibility of members of the general public, including the press, to attend Wednesday’s hearing is unconstitutional, and undermines the essential values served by public access to judicial proceedings and court records,” Steffensen wrote.

A gaggle of physicians who oppose abortion called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine asked Kacsmaryk in November to order the Food and Drug Administration to withdraw its approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. The FDA approved mifepristone in 2000.

The abortion pill has change into the central flashpoint within the legal battle over access to abortion within the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade last June. Mifepristone, used together with one other drug, called misoprostol, is probably the most common approach to terminating a pregnancy within the U.S., accounting for about half of all abortions.

The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine is represented by attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom, which worked with Mississippi lawmakers to draft the law at the middle of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. That case ultimately resulted within the Supreme Court overturning abortion rights under the U.S. Structure.

Biden administration lawyers, in a January court filing, described the case difficult the FDA approval of mifepristone as “unprecedented.”

The federal government lawyers warned that overturning the FDA approval of mifepristone would effectively pull the pill from the market, which might dramatically harm the general public interest. They said the health of ladies who depend on mifepristone as a protected and effective drug would suffer. The authority of the FDA to approve drugs based on its scientific determinations would even be weakened, the lawyers argued.

“If longstanding FDA drug approvals were so easily enjoined, even many years after being issued, pharmaceutical corporations can be unable to confidently depend on FDA approval decisions to develop the pharmaceutical-drug infrastructure that Americans depend upon to treat quite a lot of health conditions,” the Biden administration lawyers wrote.

Disclosure: NBCUniversal is the parent company of CNBC.