Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a34_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 13

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

11 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

to obtain the drug from a pharmacy on their own.”  Appli-
cation for Stay of Injunction 33.  The former concern is un-
dermined  by  the  fact  that  patients  may  receive  physician 
counseling  remotely.    The  latter  concern  makes  no  sense:  
The  Government  proposes  to  avoid  delays  by  limiting 
women’s  options  to  obtain  care  quickly.    Indeed,  the  evi-
dence before the District Court shows that the in-person re-
quirements are causing, not preventing, delays in obtaining 
critical  healthcare.   Significantly,  the  FDA’s  in-person re-
quirements for mifepristone have now been suspended for 
six months, yet the Government has not identified a single 
harm  experienced  by women  who  have  obtained mifepris-
tone by mail or delivery. 

C 
  The  concurrence  argues  that  courts  should  nonetheless 
defer to the FDA’s decision not to lift mifepristone’s in-per-
son requirements during the pandemic.  I agree that defer-
ence is due to reasoned decisions of public health officials 
grappling with a deadly pandemic.  See South Bay Pente-
costal  Church  v.  Newsom,  590  U.  S.  ___,  ___  (2020) 
(ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in denial of application for in-
junctive relief) (slip op., at 2); see also Roman Catholic Dio-
cese  of  Brooklyn  v.  Cuomo,  592  U.  S.  ___,  ___  (2020) 
(SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 2) (citing medical 
expert declarations supporting challenged responses to the 
current pandemic).    But  the  record  here  is  bereft  of  any 
reasoning.  The Government has not submitted a single dec-
laration  from  an  FDA or HHS  official  explaining  why the 
Government believes women must continue to pick up mif-
epristone  in  person,  even  though  it  has  exempted  many 
other drugs from such a requirement given the health risks 
of COVID–19.  There simply is no reasoned decision here to 
which this Court can defer.  Cf. Democratic National Com-
mittee  v.  Wisconsin  State  Legislature,  592  U.  S.  ___,  ___ 
(2020) (KAGAN, J., dissenting in denial of application to va-