Summary
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that H.B. 2684, which restricted certain off-label uses of Mifeprex, misoprostol, and methotrexate for medication abortions, did not improperly delegate legislative authority to the FDA. The court also held that the statute, although a special law, was permissible under Article V, Section 59 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The judgment declaring H.B. 2684 unconstitutional was reversed and remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether H.B. 2684 improperly delegated legislative authority to the FDA in violation of Article V, Section 1, and related separation-of-powers principles of the Oklahoma Constitution.
- Whether H.B. 2684 was an impermissible special law under Article V, Section 59, of the Oklahoma Constitution.
- Whether issue preclusion based on Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, 2013 OK 93, barred relitigation of issues concerning H.B. 2684 or its predecessor statute.
Holdings
- H.B. 2684 does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative authority because it incorporates the current Mifeprex final printed labeling for only Mifeprex, misoprostol, and methotrexate when used to induce abortions, and does not permit future FDA actions to alter Oklahoma law.
- Although H.B. 2684 is a special law because it regulates a particular class of drugs only when used to induce abortions, it is a permissible special law because a general law is not applicable and the classification is reasonably and substantially related to valid legislative objectives.
- The plaintiffs' issue-preclusion argument based on Cline II was rejected because the cited language was not necessary and essential to the prior judgment and could be excised without changing the prior court's answers to the certified questions.
Key quotations
“"1) Is the statute a special law or general law? 2) If the statute is a special law, is a general law applicable? and 3) If a general law is not applicable, is the statute a permissible special law."” (¶ 23)
“We find that H.B. 2684 does not violate the non-delegation doctrine of Article V, Section 1 because H.B. 2684 incorporates the current Mifeprex FPL, restricting only the off-label use of Mifeprex, misoprostol, and methotrexate when used to induce abortions.” (¶ 34)
Factual background
H.B. 2684 restricted the use of Mifeprex, misoprostol, and methotrexate when used to induce abortions, generally requiring adherence to the FDA-approved Mifeprex final printed labeling, while preserving methotrexate use for ectopic pregnancies. The plaintiffs alleged that the statute would prevent some patients from obtaining medication abortions and would require treatment contrary to current evidence-based medical protocols. The statute included legislative findings concerning risks associated with abortion-inducing drugs and stated objectives of protecting women and requiring physicians to follow the FDA-approved regimen.
Procedural history
The district court held H.B. 2684 unconstitutional as a special law and entered judgment for the plaintiffs. On appeal, the defendants presented challenges concerning issue preclusion, improper delegation of legislative authority, and the special-law provision of the Oklahoma Constitution. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for consideration of the statute's validity under other state and federal constitutional provisions.
Remand instructions
The district court was directed to determine H.B. 2684's validity under other state and federal constitutional provisions. The stay entered in the prior interim proceeding was to remain in place until the Act's constitutionality was fully and finally litigated.