Case: 23-10362 Document: 543-1 Page: 62 Date Filed: 08/16/2023
812 F.2d 288, 290 (6th Cir. 1987); In re GTE Serv. Corp., 762 F.2d 1024, 1026 (D.C. Cir. 1985), which weighs against construing § 705 as requiring that a stay be issued concurrently with an agency action. We are disinclined to reach a definitive answer on this question, given the cursory treatment by both parties. But we strongly doubt that § 705 should be read to impose the limit urged by FDA. Nothing about this argument persuades us that the district court abused its discretion by entering this particular form of relief.
VI. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the stay order entered by the district court is vacated in part and affirmed in part. We vacate the component of the order that stayed the effective date of the 2000 Approval and the 2019 Generic Approval. Mifeprex will remain available under the safety restrictions that were in effect prior to 2016. Generic mifepristone will also remain available under those same restrictions.
We affirm the portions of the stay order regarding the 2016 Amendments and the 2021 Non-Enforcement Decision. In loosening mifepristone’s safety restrictions, FDA failed to address several important concerns about whether the drug would be safe for the women who use it. It failed to consider the cumulative effect of removing several important safeguards at the same time. It failed to consider whether those “major” and “interrelated” changes might alter the risk profile, such that the agency should continue to mandate reporting of non-fatal adverse events. And it failed to gather evidence that affirmatively showed that mifepristone could be used safely without being prescribed and dispensed in person.
At this preliminary stage, the Medical Organizations and Doctors have made a substantial showing that the 2016 Amendments and the 2021 Non-Enforcement Decision violate the APA. Accordingly, those actions will be stayed pending final judgment. But to repeat, all of this relief is subject to
62
