Amicus Curiae Brief — Danco Laboratories, LLC, Applicant v. Louisiana, et al.

Supreme Court briefMay 7, 2026

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Nos. 25A1207 and 25A1208

In the Supreme Court of the United States

D ANCO L ABORATORIES , LLC,

Applicant,

LOUISIANA, et al.,

Respondents.

G EN B IO P RO , I NC .,

Applicant,

LOUISIANA, et al.,

Respondents.

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE SENATOR BILL CASSIDY, M.D.,

REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, SENATE MAJORITY

LEADER JOHN THUNE, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES MIKE JOHNSON, AND 109 MEMBERS OF

CONGRESS, IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO THE

APPLICATIONS TO STAY THE ORDER ENTERED BY THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

HEATHER GEBELIN HACKER

Counsel of Record

HACKER STEPHENS LLP

108 Wild Basin Rd. South

Suite 250

Austin, Texas 78746

(512) 399-3022

heather@hackerstephens.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Table of Authorities......................................................................................................................... ii

Interest of Amici Curiae ................................................................................................................. 1

Summary of the Argument ............................................................................................................ 1

Argument .......................................................................................................................................... 3

The Biden FDA’s 2023 Mifepristone REMS Is Contrary to Law

Because It Fails to Meet the Statutory Requirement to Demonstrate

Safety and the Fifth Circuit’s Ruling is Justified. ...................................................... 3

The Biden FDA relied on insufficient data to establish the safety

of foregoing the in-person requirement. .............................................................. 3

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling is warranted because the 2023 REMS

endangers women’s health and safety and increases the risk of

coercion. .................................................................................................................... 6

The 2023 REMS endangers women’s health and safety. .......................... 6

The 2023 REMS increases the risk of coercion. ......................................... 8

II. The Biden FDA’s 2023 Mifepristone REMS Violates Federal Law. .................... 11

The 2023 REMS directly conflicts with the Comstock Act, which

prohibits mailing abortion drugs......................................................................... 11

The Biden FDA’s attempt to authorize conduct prohibited under

federal law exceeds its statutory authority and violates the

separation of powers. ............................................................................................ 12

The Biden administration’s attempts to evade the plain text of the

Comstock Act do not stand up to legal scrutiny. .............................................. 13

There is no “longstanding judicial construction” of the Comstock

Act which limits its applicability to situations where the sender

“intends” that the pills be used unlawfully. ............................................... 14

Congress did not “ratify” the Biden administration’s preferred

construction of the Comstock Act. .............................................................. 18

Conclusion....................................................................................................................................... 20

Appendix: List of Amici Curiae..................................................................................................... 1a

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

All. for Hippocratic Med. v. FDA,

78 F.4th 210 (5th Cir. 2023) ............................................................................... 4, 5, 14, 18, 19

All. for Hippocratic Med. v. FDA,

No. 23-10362, 2023 WL 2913725 (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023) (per curiam) ............. 4, 5, 14, 15

BedRoc Ltd., LLC v. United States,

541 U.S. 176 (2004) ................................................................................................................. 15

Bostock v. Clayton Cnty.,

590 U.S. 644 (2020) ................................................................................................................. 15

Bours v. United States,

229 F. 960 (7th Cir. 1915) ................................................................................................ 16, 17

Campaign for Accountability v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

155 F.4th 724 (D.C. Cir. 2025) .............................................................................................. 14

Clark v. United States,

202 F. 740 (8th Cir. 1912) ...................................................................................................... 17

Clements v. Florida,

59 F.4th 1204 (11th Cir. 2023)............................................................................................... 15

Cochran v. SEC,

20 F.4th 194 (5th Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................... 12

Consumers Union U.S., Inc. v. Walker,

145 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1944) .................................................................................................. 16

Davis v. United States,

62 F.2d 473 (6th Cir. 1933) .................................................................................................... 16

Dep’t of Transp. v. Ass’n of Am. Railroads,

575 U.S. 43 (2015) ................................................................................................................... 12

Djie v. Garland,

39 F.4th 280 (5th Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................... 13

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org.,

597 U.S. 215 (2022) ............................................................................................................... 2, 3

FCC v. Prometheus Radio Proj.,

592 U.S. 414 (2021) ................................................................................................................... 4

Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enf’t,

543 U.S. 335 (2005) ..................................................................................................... 17, 18, 19

Lee v. United States,

156 F. 948 (9th Cir. 1907) ...................................................................................................... 17

Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys. Proj., Inc.,

576 U.S. 519 (2015) ................................................................................................................. 18

Texas v. Cardona,

743 F. Supp. 3d 824 (N.D. Tex. 2024) .................................................................................. 12

United States v. Nicholas,

97 F.2d 510 (2d Cir. 1938)...................................................................................................... 16

United States v. One Package,

86 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1936)................................................................................................ 16, 17

United States v. Powell,

379 U.S. 48 (1964) ................................................................................................................... 17

Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA,

573 U.S. 302 (2014) ..................................................................................................... 12, 13, 14

Weathers v. United States,

126 F.2d 118 (5th Cir. 1942) .................................................................................................. 17

Youngs Rubber Corp. v.. C.I. Lee & Co.,

45 F.2d 103 (2d Cir. 1930)...................................................................................................... 16

Constitutional Provisions

U.S. Const. art. I, §1 ...................................................................................................................... 12

U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 1 .......................................................................................................... 12

U.S. Const. art. II, § 3 ................................................................................................................... 14

Statutes

5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ................................................................................................................... 2, 11

5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C) ......................................................................................................................... 2

18 U.S.C. § 1461 ................................................................................................................... 2, 11, 18

18 U.S.C. § 1462 ....................................................................................................................... 11, 18

18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)......................................................................................................................... 11

21 U.S.C. § 355 ............................................................................................................................... 13

21 U.S.C. § 355-1 ............................................................................................................................ 13

La. R.S. § 14:87.1 ............................................................................................................................. 2

La. R.S. § 14:87.9 ............................................................................................................................. 2

Other Authorities

A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (2012) ................ 18

ACOG, Comm. On Practice Bulletins – Gynecology and the Soc’y of Family

Planning, Medication Abortion Up to 70 Days of Gestation, Comm. Op. 225,

at 40 (reaffirmed 2023), available at https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinicalguidance/practice-bulletin/articles/2020/10/medication-abortion-up-to-70days-of-gestation ...................................................................................................................... 7

Application of the Comstock Act to the Mailing of Prescription Drugs That Can

Be Used for Abortions, 46 Op. O.L.C. ––––, –––– (Dec. 23, 2022) at 1-2,

https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/file/1560596/dl?inline ................................... 14, 15, 16

iii

Cease and Desist Order, Notice of Civil Penalty and Notice of Right to Request

a Hearing, State of North Dakota v. Prairie Abortion Fund, CPAT

250164.001 (Jan. 16, 2026), available at https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2026/01/

Prairie-Abortion-Fund-CD-color.pdf .................................................................................... 9

Comm. on Health Care for Underserved Women, Am. Coll. of Obstetricians &

Gynecologists, Intimate Partner Violence, Comm. Op. No. 518, at 3

(reaffirmed 2022), https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinicalguidance/committee-opinion/articles/2012/02/intimate-partner-violence ........................ 8

Comm. on Obstetric Practice, Am. Coll. of Obstetrs. & Gynecols. et al., Methods

for Estimating the Due Date, Comm. Op. No. 700, at 1 (reaffirmed 2025),

available at https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committeeopinion/articles/2017/05/methods-for-estimating-the-due-date..................................... 6, 7

Ctr. for Drug Eval. & Research, Mifepristone REMS Modiciation Rationale

Review at 23,

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/summary_review/2023/020

687Orig1s025SumR.pdf#page=75 ........................................................................................ 4

Executive Order No. 14,079 of Aug. 3, 2022, Securing Access to Reproductive

and Other Healthcare Services, 87 Fed. Reg. 49505 (Aug. 11, 2022),

available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/08/11/202217420/securing-access-to-reproductive-and-other-healthcare-services ........................... 2

FDA, Mifeprex Label,

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2023/020687Orig1s02

5Lbl.

pdf ............................................................................................................................................... 3

FDA, Questions and Answers on Mifepristone for Medical Termination of

Pregnancy Through Ten Weeks Gestation (current through Feb. 11, 2025),

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patientsand-providers/questions-and-answers-mifepristone-medical-terminationpregnancy-through-ten-weeks-gestation.............................................................................. 6

Letter from Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, et al., to Robert Califf, FDA Commissioner

(Jan. 26, 2023), https://www.hydesmith.senate.gov/sites/default/files/202301/012623%20Bicameral%20Letter%20to%20FDA%20re%20Abortion%20D

rugs.pdf .................................................................................................................................... 11

Letter from Sen. James Lankford, et al., to Attorney General Merrick B.

Garland, (Jan. 25, 2023), https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wpcontent/uploads/media/doc/dojletterabortionmail.pdf ...................................................... 15

Louisiana woman pleads not guilty to felony after allegedly giving abortion

pills from N.Y. doctor to her teen, CBS News (Mar. 12, 2025),

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/louisiana-woman-pleads-not-guiltyabortion-case-pills-doctor-teen/ ........................................................................................... 10

Mayo Clinic, Ectopic Pregnancy, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseasesconditions/ectopic-pregnancy/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20372093 .................................... 6

Mayo Clinic, Rh factor blood test, https://www.mayoclinic.org/testsprocedures/rh-factor/about/pac-20394960 (last accessed Feb. 2, 2026)............................ 7

Megan Hall, Associations Between Intimate Partner Violence and

Termination of Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,

PLOS Med., Jan. 7, 2014, https://www.wtol.com/article/news/investigations/

11-investigates/utmc-doctor-license-suspended-abortion-drugallegations/512-2ec091b0-552a-4f67-bc25-3c44a063798 ...................................................... 8

Melissa Andrews, Ohio suspends UTMC doctor’s license amid allegations he

secretly gave abortion drugs to patient, WTOL11 (Nov. 10, 2025),

https://www.wtol.com/article/news/investigations/

11-investigates/utmc-doctor-license-suspended-abortion-drugallegations/512-2ec091b0-552a-4f67-bc25-3c44a063798e .................................................. 10

Patrick Reilly, Surgeon allegedly shoved crushed abortion pills into pregnant

girlfriend’s mouth while she slept, N.Y. Post (Dec. 9, 2025),

https://nypost.com/2025/12/09/us-news/surgeon-allegedly-shoved-crushedabortion-pills-into-pregnant-girlfriends-mouth-while-she-slept/ .................................... 10

Report of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice on Recodification of Federal

Criminal Law, Committee on the Judiciary, H. Rpt. 95-29, at 42 (1979),

available at https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/63344NCJRS.pdf

(last accessed Feb. 2, 2026) ................................................................................................... 19

Treatment of E-Cigarettes in the Mail, 86 Fed. Reg. 58398, 58403 n.5 (Oct. 21,

2021) (to be codified at 39 C.F.R. pts. 111, 211) ................................................................. 13

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Amici curiae 1 are 113 Members of the United States Congress. A complete list of Amici

is found in the Appendix to this brief. Congress delegates power to the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) to approve drugs and regulate their safety and efficacy within the

parameters set by federal law. But Congress specifically prohibited the mailing of “[e]very

article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.” 18 U.S.C. § 1461.

By deregulating chemical abortion drugs and permitting them to be sent through the

mail, the Biden FDA violated that longstanding federal law. Unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Biden’s FDA therefore overrode the will of the American people as expressed

through their elected representatives in Congress and in state legislatures and subverted

Congress’s critical public policy interests in upholding patient welfare. The lawless actions

of the Biden FDA have also caused real harm and continue to endanger women and girls

undergoing chemical abortions, warranting the preliminary relief granted by the Fifth Circuit. As pro-life elected representatives, Amici are committed to protecting women and girls

from the harms of the abortion industry. Amici are also committed to upholding the rule of

law and the proper separation of powers outlined in our Constitution.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Congress has conferred regulatory power on federal agencies like the FDA, but that

power is also circumscribed by Congress. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) prohibits agency actions that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

Pursuant to Rule 37.6, undersigned counsel affirms that no counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part and that no person or entity other than amici or their

counsel made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation and submission of

this brief.

accordance with law,” or “in excess of statutory . . . authority, or limitations, or short of

statutory right,” and requires federal courts to “hold unlawful and set aside” such actions.

5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C). In passing the Comstock Act, Congress decided that chemical

abortion drugs are “nonmailable matter” by the United States Postal Service (USPS) and

private carriers, protecting women and girls from the heightened risks of mail-order chemical abortion drugs. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1461–62. To further its expressly stated goal of subverting

state abortion prohibitions authorized by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,

597 U.S. 215 (2022), and in direct violation of the Comstock Act, the Biden administration

in 2023 lifted a key safety requirement in the FDA’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS)—the requirement of in-person dispensing of mifepristone, one of two drugs

that are used to chemically induce abortion. The change was made precisely so that abortionists in pro-abortion states could prescribe and mail abortion drugs to women or girls in

pro-life states with tighter regulations on these drugs. 2 Former President Biden admitted

as much when he issued an Executive Order directly challenging “the continued advancement of restrictive abortion laws in States across the country.” 3 This action contravenes

federal laws passed by the elected representatives of the American people. It also contravenes state laws prohibiting abortion, such as Louisiana’s, even though “the authority to

In Louisiana, for example, even when a state licensed physician may lawfully administer

a chemical abortion drug to a pregnant woman under one of the exceptions to the State’s

abortion prohibition, the drug must be administered to the pregnant woman in person. See

La. R.S. §§ 14:87.1, 14:87.9.

Executive Order No. 14,079 of Aug. 3, 2022, Securing Access to Reproductive and Other

Healthcare Services, 87 Fed. Reg. 49505 (Aug. 11, 2022), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/08/11/2022-17420/securing-access-to-reproductive-andother-healthcare-services.

regulate abortion” belongs to “the people and their elected representatives,” not unelected

bureaucrats. Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 292.

Further, the Biden FDA’s lawless action also carries serious risks that were not

properly analyzed. The Biden FDA did not have a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude

that eliminating the in-person dispensing requirement was safe. And because no in-person

visit is required now, women cannot be meaningfully screened for serious contraindications

for the use of this drug, such as ectopic pregnancy. 4 It also increases the likelihood that

some women are being coerced into taking these drugs against their will, as the heartbreaking story of Plaintiff Rosalie Markezich illustrates. As delegated by Congress, the FDA’s

job is to ensure drug safety, not to encourage the risky use of drugs just to further former

President Biden’s pro-abortion agenda. Exceeding its mandate is illegal and also harmful,

both to the separation of powers and to women taking mifepristone. The Fifth Circuit was

correct to grant a stay and the Court should deny the applications to stay that judgment.

ARGUMENT

The Biden FDA’s 2023 Mifepristone REMS Is Contrary to Law Because It Fails

to Meet the Statutory Requirement to Demonstrate Safety and the Fifth

Circuit’s Ruling is Justified.

A. The Biden FDA relied on insufficient data to establish the safety of

foregoing the in-person requirement.

The Biden FDA’s justification for eliminating the in-person dispensing requirement is

arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law, and thus violates the APA, because

FDA’s label for mifepristone warns that “if the duration of pregnancy is uncertain or if

ectopic pregnancy is suspected,” a provider should “[a]ssess the pregnancy by ultrasonographic scan.” FDA, Mifeprex Label at 2, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2023/020687Orig1s025Lbl.pdf. Providers cannot assess a pregnancy by ultrasonographic scan without an in-person visit.

it failed to support its conclusion with sufficient studies or evidence to meet the statutory

requirement to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the drug under the new conditions. The FDA’s conclusion heavily relies on adverse events collected from the drug manufacturers and the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) during periods when

the in-person dispensing requirement was not being enforced to conclude that eliminating

the in-person requirement would not affect safety. 5 But this is not evidence of safety. The

Biden FDA admitted that “[r]ates of occurrence [for an adverse event] cannot be established with [FAERS] reports.” D. Ct. Doc. 1-52 at 5. Thus, as the Fifth Circuit has explained, “FDA’s decision to rely so heavily on data from FAERS ‘runs counter to’ the critical limitations associated with that data.” All. for Hippocratic Med. v. FDA, 78 F.4th 210,

250 (5th Cir. 2023), rev’d and remanded sub nom. FDA v. All. for Hippocratic Med., 602

U.S. 367 (2024) (citation omitted). And the lack of data is the logical consequence of the

FDA’s action in 2016 to remove the requirement for providers who prescribe abortion drugs

to report non-fatal adverse events. Because of this, FAERS data on the safety of chemical

abortion drugs significantly understates the risk. As the Fifth Circuit has already pointed

out, “[a]fter eliminating that adverse-event reporting requirement, FDA turned around in

2021 and declared the absence of non-fatal adverse-event reports means mifepristone is

‘safe.’” All. for Hippocratic Med. v. FDA, No. 23-10362, 2023 WL 2913725, at *17 (5th Cir.

See Ctr. for Drug Eval. & Research, Mifepristone REMS Modification Rationale Review at 23,

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/summary_review/2023/

020687Orig1s025SumR.pdf#page=75 (comparison between FAERS data before 2020 and

after, when in-person requirement was not being enforced, “suggests that mifepristone may

be safely used without an in-person dispensing requirement.”).

Apr. 12, 2023) (per curiam). “It’s unreasonable for an agency to eliminate a reporting requirement for a thing and then use the absence of data to support its decision.” Id. Thus,

the Biden FDA’s “actions are well ‘outside the zone of reasonableness,’” id. (quoting FCC

v. Prometheus Radio Project, 592 U.S. 414, 428 (2021)), and violate the APA.

On top of its reliance on the insufficient FAERS data, the Biden FDA also relied on

other scientific literature that did not support the removal of the in-person dispensing requirement, again in violation of the APA. The Biden FDA admitted that “the studies [it]

reviewed are not adequate on their own to establish the safety of the model of dispensing

mifepristone by mail.” D. Ct. Doc. 1-10 at 36. The Biden FDA also acknowledged that “the

studies neither confirmed nor rejected the idea that mifepristone would be safe if the inperson dispensing requirement were removed.” All. for Hippocratic Med., 78 F.4th at 250.

This admission makes it clear that the Biden FDA got its legal responsibilities backward.

The FDA has the burden of establishing safety before weakening safety standards. In fact,

as Plaintiffs argued in their Motion for Preliminary Relief, “the studies actually showed

increased risk of harm from removing the in-person dispensing requirement.” D. Ct. Doc.

20-26 at 18 n. 2. When looking at the full administrative record, it becomes clear that rather

than letting science and evidence drive its decision making, the Biden FDA reached a predetermined and politically motivated conclusion to expand access to abortion drugs despite

lacking enough evidence to show the change would be safe. This is a clear violation of FDA’s

legal responsibilities and a fact acknowledged by current Secretary of Health and Human

Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and FDA Commissioner Martin A. Makary, who both

stated in September 2025 that there was a “lack of adequate consideration” of the safety

risks “underlying the prior REMS approvals,” including the Biden FDA’s decision to “remov[e] the in-person dispensing requirement.” D. Ct. Doc. 1-110 at 2.

B. The Fifth Circuit’s ruling is warranted because the 2023 REMS endangers

women’s health and safety and increases the risk of coercion.

1. The 2023 REMS endangers women’s health and safety.

A federal agency contravening federal law is bad enough, but by expressly authorizing

mail-order chemical abortion drugs, the FDA is endangering women’s health and safety by

eliminating a medically necessary in-person examination to screen for contraindications.

The FDA admits that a number of medical conditions make a woman ineligible to take

chemical abortion drugs, including potentially having a dangerous ectopic pregnancy (a

pregnancy outside of the uterus) or having an intrauterine device (IUD) in place. 6 A physician can only diagnose an ectopic pregnancy by blood tests and an ultrasound, which means

a physician cannot determine via telemedicine whether a pregnancy is ectopic. 7

Chemical abortion drugs also should not be used after the first seventy days of pregnancy due to heightened risk to the woman’s health, as the FDA acknowledges. 8 Ultrasound

is the most accurate method to establish or confirm gestational age in the first trimester. 9

FDA, Questions and Answers on Mifepristone for Medical Termination of Pregnancy

Through

Ten

Weeks

Gestation

(current

through

Feb.

11,

2025),

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/questions-and-answers-mifepristone-medical-termination-pregnancy-through-tenweeks-gestation.

Mayo Clinic, Ectopic Pregnancy, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ectopic-pregnancy/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20372093 (last accessed Feb. 2, 2026).

See Questions and Answers, n. 6 supra.

Comm. on Obstetric Practice, Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists et al., Methods

for Estimating the Due Date, Comm. Op. No. 700, at 1 (reaffirmed 2025),

https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2017/05/methods-for-estimating-the-due-date.

Dating a pregnancy by using a woman’s last menstrual period (LMP) is far less accurate.

In one study, forty percent of women had more than a five-day discrepancy between their

LMP dating and the ultrasound dating. 10 Thus, relying solely on LMP, as occurs in mailorder abortion, will not produce an accurate measurement of gestational age, which is required to show that a woman is a candidate for a chemical abortion. Further, a delay in the

mail or cold feet upon receipt of the drugs may significantly worsen a woman’s risk profile

even if the prescription was sent within the seventy-day window.

An additional known problem is that without an in-person evaluation, a woman cannot

be tested for Rh negative blood type. During pregnancy, if a woman has Rh negative blood

while her fetus is Rh positive, the woman’s body may produce antibodies after exposure to

fetal red blood cells. 11 Without an Rh immune globulin injection, the Rh antibodies can endanger future pregnancies by creating life-threatening anemia in fetal red blood cells. 12 But

if a physician has not tested for Rh factor, a physician cannot provide this critical treatment,

and a woman will be unaware she has a condition that could endanger her future children.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agrees: “Rh testing is recommended in patients with unknown Rh status before medication abortion, and Rh D immunoglobulin should be administered if indicated.” 13

Id.

Mayo Clinic, Rh factor blood test, https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/rh-factor/about/pac-20394960 (last accessed Feb. 2, 2026).

Id.

ACOG, Comm. On Practice Bulletins – Gynecology and the Soc’y of Family Planning,

Medication Abortion Up to 70 Days of Gestation, Comm. Op. 225, at 40 (reaffirmed 2023),

https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-bulletin/articles/2020/10/medication-abortion-up-to-70-days-of-gestation.

2. The 2023 REMS increases the risk of coercion.

The 2023 REMS also opens the door for those who seek to coerce a woman into having

an abortion because it removes the ability of a doctor to ensure a woman receiving chemical

abortion drugs actually wishes to take them. A woman seeking an abortion may be facing

coercion or intimate partner violence (IPV), and without an in-person evaluation, a provider’s ability to discern that is limited. There are “[h]igh rates of physical, sexual, and

emotional IPV . . . among women seeking a[n abortion].” 14 For women seeking abortion, the

prevalence of IPV is nearly three times greater than women continuing a pregnancy. 15 Postabortive IPV victims also have a “significant association” with “psychosocial problems including depression . . . , suicidal ideation . . . , stress . . . , and disturbing thoughts.” 16 Medical

professionals must “[s]creen for IPV in a private and safe setting with the woman alone and

not with her partner, friends, family, or caregiver.” 17 But mail-order abortions administered

online cannot ensure that a coercive partner, friend, family member, or caregiver is not in

the room with a woman seeking a chemical abortion. In other words, domestic violence

screening by telehealth “may not allow individuals the privacy or safety needed to disclose

Megan Hall et al., Associations Between Intimate Partner Violence and Termination

of Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, PLOS Med., Jan. 7, 2014, at 1, 15,

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3883805/pdf/pmed.1001581.pdf.

Comm. on Health Care for Underserved Women, Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Reproductive and Sexual Coercion, Comm. Op. No. 554, at 2 (Feb. 2013),

https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2013/02/reproductive-and-sexual-coercion.

Hall, n. 14 supra, at 11.

Comm. on Health Care for Underserved Women, Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Intimate Partner Violence, Comm. Op. No. 518, at 3 (reaffirmed 2022),

https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2012/02/intimate-partner-violence.

abuse.” 18 Thus, telehealth ineffectively screens women seeking chemical abortions for domestic violence or coercion, subjecting those women to increased harm. Even worse, some

mail-order abortionists are choosing not to even confirm whether the recipient is a pregnant

adult woman who desires an abortion. 19

This is not abstract. Plaintiff Rosalie Markezich experienced this harm personally. D.

Ct. Doc. 1-92. A doctor did not examine Ms. Markezich nor detect the coercion she experienced. Her boyfriend ordered mifepristone from a California doctor and coerced Ms.

Markezich to take it, resulting in her great distress and the loss of her baby. Id. at ¶¶ 7-9,

11-13, 16, 18-19. The only contact she had with a doctor throughout the process was sending

a payment to a doctor in California. Id. at ¶ 8. Had she visited a doctor in person, her “boyfriend would never have been able to obtain the drugs he made [her] take,” and she “would

have told the doctor that [she] wanted to keep [her] baby.” Id. at ¶ 19. The Biden FDA’s

lawless action caused this harm to Ms. Markezich, and other women like her.

Tragically, Ms. Markezich’s case is not the only case of its kind to happen since the 2023

REMS was enacted. In January 2025, a Baton Rouge-area grand jury indicted a New York

Id.

For example, when investigating an online abortion provider for unlawful sales or advertising practices, the North Dakota Attorney General found two websites selling chemical

abortion drugs did not require “any information outside of a name, email, phone number,

billing and shipping address to complete the purchase” and that “[a] purchaser is not asked

to answer any health questions, provide a prescription, verify identity, or disclose their age

. . . [t]here was no age or identity verification during the entire purchasing process for either

website.” Cease and Desist Order, Notice of Civil Penalty and Notice of Right to Request

a Hearing, State of North Dakota v. Prairie Abortion Fund, CPAT 250164.001 (Jan. 16,

2026),

available

https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/

Prairie-Abortion-Fund-CD-color.pdf.

doctor and a Louisiana mother on felony charges after the mother allegedly ordered chemical abortion drugs online from the doctor and forced her pregnant teenage daughter to

take them. 20 Her daughter then experienced a severe medical emergency, prompting a 911

call and hospitalization, and her baby did not survive. The mother allegedly obtained the

drugs by simply filling out an online questionnaire and there was no consultation between

the doctor and the teenage daughter. 21 In November 2025, the State Medical Board of Ohio

suspended the license of a medical resident after he admitted to purchasing chemical abortion drugs online using his estranged wife’s name, birth date, and driver’s license number

without her knowledge or consent and had the drugs shipped to his address. 22 He admitted

to crushing the pills up to adjust the dosage and make them dissolve faster, and then the

victim reportedly awoke to find him holding her down and forcing the crushed abortion pills

inside her mouth. 23 When she managed to escape, she drove to the emergency room where

she was diagnosed with vaginal bleeding, and her baby did not survive. 24

See Louisiana woman pleads not guilty to felony after allegedly giving abortion pills

from

N.Y.

doctor

her

teen,

CBS

News

(Mar.

12,

2025),

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/louisiana-woman-pleads-not-guilty-abortion-case-pillsdoctor-teen/.

Id.

See Melissa Andrews, Ohio suspends UTMC doctor’s license amid allegations he secretly gave abortion drugs to patient, WTOL11 (Nov. 10, 2025), https://www.wtol.com/article/news/investigations/

11-investigates/utmc-doctor-license-suspended-abortion-drug-allegations/512-2ec091b0552a-4f67-bc25-3c44a063798e.

Id.

Patrick Reilly, Surgeon allegedly shoved crushed abortion pills into pregnant girlfriend’s mouth while she slept, N.Y. Post (Dec. 9, 2025), https://nypost.com/2025/12/09/usnews/surgeon-allegedly-shoved-crushed-abortion-pills-into-pregnant-girlfriends-mouthwhile-she-slept/.

These stories, and many others—both publicly reported and not—demonstrate the realworld impact of the Biden administration’s unlawful decision to eliminate the in-person dispensing requirement in the 2023 REMS. The Fifth Circuit was correct to grant a stay because it is needed to prevent this deep injustice from continuing to plague other women in

Louisiana and across the country.

II.

The Biden FDA’s 2023 Mifepristone REMS Violates Federal Law.

A. The 2023 REMS directly conflicts with the Comstock Act, which prohibits

mailing abortion drugs.

As numerous Members of Congress already told the Biden FDA in response to the 2023

REMS, 25 eliminating the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone and authorizing the dispensing of mifepristone “through the mail,” D. Ct. Doc. 1-50 at 81, “is not in accordance with” federal criminal law, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The Comstock Act imposes felony

criminal liability on the mailing of “[e]very article or thing designed, adapted, or intended

for producing abortion” and “[e]very article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or

thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply

it for producing abortion.” 18 U.S.C. § 1461. It also applies similar criminal penalties for

importing and using a “common carrier” (like FedEx) or “interactive computer service”

“for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce . . . any drug, medicine, article, or thing

designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.” 18 U.S.C. § 1462. Violations are

serious—anyone who violates the Comstock Act “shall be fined . . . or imprisoned not more

than five years, or both, for the first such offense,” and “fined . . . or imprisoned not more

Letter from Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, et al., to Robert Califf, FDA Commissioner (Jan.

26, 2023), https://www.hydesmith.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/012623%20Bicameral%20Letter%20to%20FDA%20re%20Abortion%20Drugs.pdf.

than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.” Id. Violations of the Comstock

Act are also predicate offenses under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

Act (RICO), which provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action. 18

U.S.C. § 1961(1).

B. The Biden FDA’s attempt to authorize conduct prohibited under federal

law exceeds its statutory authority and violates the separation of powers.

Federal agency action that rewrites, contradicts, or ignores a federal statute violates

the separation of powers. “When the Government is called upon to perform a function that

requires an exercise of legislative, executive, or judicial power, only the vested recipient of

that power can perform it.” DOT v. Ass’n of Am. Railroads, 575 U.S. 43, 68 (2015) (Thomas,

J., concurring in judgment). Because the Constitution gives the executive branch only “[t]he

executive Power,” executive agencies may only constitutionally exercise that power. U.S.

Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 1. Legislative power is reserved for Congress. U.S. Const. art. I, § 1.

An agency action that contradicts or encourages violation of a federal statute exceeds the

agency’s constitutional authority and usurps Congress’s legislative power. Violating the

separation of powers is nothing less than antithetical to our system of government, as “the

separation of powers is the defining feature and virtue of our Constitution.” Cochran v.

SEC, 20 F.4th 194, 214 (5th Cir. 2021) (Oldham, J., concurring, joined by Smith, Willett,

Duncan, Englehardt, and Wilson, JJ.).

The FDA cannot purport to authorize conduct criminalized under federal law—that

would exceed its constitutional authority. A federal agency “lacks the authority to ‘rewrite

clear statutory terms to suit its own sense of how the statute should operate,’ particularly

in a way that undercuts a statute’s purpose.” Texas v. Cardona, 743 F. Supp. 3d 824, 870

(N.D. Tex. 2024) (quoting Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 328 (2014)). Nothing

in the law “remotely authorizes an agency to modify unambiguous requirements imposed

by a federal statute.” Util. Air Regul. Grp., 573 U.S. at 327. Nor does the executive power

“include a power to revise clear statutory terms,” even if those terms “turn out not to work

in practice.” Id. “When a regulation attempts to override statutory text, the regulation loses

every time—regulations can’t punch holes in the rules Congress has laid down.” Djie v.

Garland, 39 F.4th 280, 285 (5th Cir. 2022).

Thus, while it is true that Congress has delegated authority for drug approval and the

imposition of REMS requirements to the FDA within the guardrails set up by statute, see

21 U.S.C. §§ 355, 355-1, that authority does not extend to unilaterally deciding all conditions

related to the use or distribution of any drug, nor does anything in those statutes grant

FDA a permission slip to override or ignore all other federal laws. The USPS, another federal agency, acknowledged in 2021 in the context of a final rule pertaining to e-cigarettes,

that “FDA authorization of a [product] for introduction or delivery into interstate commerce does not absolve an actor from other Federal requirements that govern the manufacture and distribution of [such products]: Rather, all overlapping requirements must be

complied with in order to offer the product in interstate commerce.” Treatment of E-Cigarettes in the Mail, 86 Fed. Reg. 58398, 58403 n. 5 (Oct. 21, 2021) (to be codified at 39 C.F.R.

pts. 111, 211).

C. The Biden administration’s attempts to evade the plain text of the

Comstock Act do not stand up to legal scrutiny.

In defending the 2023 REMS against legal challenges contending the action was inconsistent with the Comstock Act and advising federal agencies to flout the law, the Biden

Department of Justice argued that the Comstock Act essentially does not really mean what

it says, or “that judicial gloss and lax enforcement over the past century act to graft relevant

exceptions onto it.” All. for Hippocratic Med., 2023 WL 2913725, at *21. But the language

is plain, and as Judge Ho has explained, the Biden administration’s contentions to the contrary are “atextual.” All. for Hippocratic Med. 78 F.4th at 268–70 (5th Cir. 2023) (Ho, J.,

concurring in part). No consensus judicial construction contradicting the relevant plain text

exists, but even if it did, judicial “gloss” cannot change the unambiguous text of a statute

nor create exceptions where Congress did not.

1. There is no “longstanding judicial construction” of the Comstock

Act which limits its applicability to situations where the sender

“intends” that the pills be used unlawfully.

In response to an inquiry by the USPS as to the legality of mailing abortion drugs, the

Biden Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) released an opinion in December 2022, claiming that

despite its plain terms, the Comstock Act does not prohibit sending abortion drugs through

the mail when the sender “lacks the intent” that the recipient will use them in violation of

state law. 26 Of course, OLC opinions are not binding anywhere outside the executive branch,

and even there only by custom. See, e.g., Campaign for Accountability v. DOJ, 155 F.4th

724, 727 (D.C. Cir. 2025). Nor may an OLC opinion override federal statutes, as that would

exceed the constitutional authority of the executive branch. Util. Air Regul. Grp., 573 U.S.

at 327 (“Under our system of government, Congress makes laws and the President, acting

at all times through agencies . . . ., ‘faithfully execute[s]’ them.” (quoting U.S. Const. art. II,

Application of the Comstock Act to the Mailing of Prescription Drugs That Can Be Used

for Abortions, 46 Op. O.L.C. ––––, –––– (Dec. 23, 2022) at 1-2, https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/file/1560596/dl?inline (“OLC Opinion”).

§ 3)). While the Comstock Act does have an intent requirement, it has nothing to do with

knowledge of a violation of state law. “The plain text does not require that a user of the

mails or common interstate carriage intend that an abortion actually occur. Rather, a user

of those shipping channels violates the plain text merely by knowingly making use of the

mail for a prohibited abortion item.” All. for Hippocratic Med., 2023 WL 2913725, at *20.

The Biden OLC attempted to sidestep the unambiguous text of the statute by arguing that

its favored interpretation is “based upon a longstanding judicial construction of the Comstock Act, which Congress ratified.” OLC Opinion at 2. This claim is wrong, as numerous

Members of Congress explained to former Attorney General Merrick Garland. 27

To start, just as the executive branch cannot purport to change or override the plain

text of a statute consistent with the Constitution, the judicial branch generally may not

either. “‘[O]nly the words on the page constitute the law adopted by Congress and approved

by the President,’” and “if ‘judges could add to, remodel, update, or detract from old statutory terms inspired only by extratextual sources and our own imaginations, we would risk

amending statutes outside the legislative process reserved for the people’s representatives.’” Clements v. Florida, 59 F.4th 1204, 1222 (11th Cir. 2023) (Newsom, J., concurring)

(quoting Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 590 U.S. 644, 654-55 (2020)). Thus, a court’s “inquiry

begins with the statutory text, and ends there as well as if the text is unambiguous.” BedRoc

Ltd., LLC v. United States, 541 U.S. 176, 183 (2004).

Letter from Sen. James Lankford, et al., to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, (Jan.

25, 2023), https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/media/doc/dojletterabortionmail.pdf.

OLC does not explain how the Act is ambiguous, necessitating a judicial spin on the

“words on the page” in the first place. See generally OLC Opinion. Regardless, OLC’s claim

of a “longstanding judicial construction” contradicting the statute’s plain text does not hold

up to scrutiny. In support of this contention, OLC relied on a smattering of decisions from

the Second Circuit, along with one each from the Sixth, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits. See

OLC Opinion at 5-10 (citing Bours v. United States, 229 F. 960 (7th Cir. 1915); Youngs

Rubber Corp. v. C.I. Lee & Co., 45 F.2d 103 (2d Cir. 1930); Davis v. United States, 62 F.2d

473 (6th Cir. 1933); United States v. One Package, 86 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1936); United States

v. Nicholas, 97 F.2d 510 (2d Cir. 1938); Consumers Union U.S., Inc. v. Walker, 145 F.2d 33

(D.C. Cir. 1944)). The issue in all these cases except Bours was the mailing of contraceptives, 28 which was also originally prohibited by the Act but was later repealed by Congress

(in contrast to the mailing of chemical abortion drugs). The decisions concluded that because state law allowed lawful uses of contraceptives in some circumstances, Congress must

have really meant to say, “illegal contraception or abortion or for indecent or immoral purposes.” See One Package, 86 F.2d at 738 (emphasis added). But using “illegal” to modify

“abortion” in that clause wouldn’t have been necessary for the same reason because abortion, as conceptualized by the Biden administration, was illegal in all 50 states at this time,

under both federal and state law. And as Bours explains, the statute was aimed at prohibiting the mailing of items that “destroy[ ] life.” 229 F. at 964. Even though states allowed

abortions to save the mother’s life, and Bours agreed that the Act’s definition of “abortion”

Youngs was a trademark infringement case and OLC admits that the court’s conclusion

that mailing contraceptives was only illegal if the contraceptives were illegal under state

law was dicta (which was later adopted by the other Second Circuit decisions cited). OLC

Opinion at 6.

excludes “operation[s]” that are necessary to “save [the mother’s] life,” id., Bours also held

that “it is immaterial what the local statutory definition of abortion is, what acts of abortion

are included, or what excluded,” id. Rather, “the word ‘abortion’ in the national statute must

be taken in its general medical sense.” Id. And “[i]ts inclusion in the statute governing the

use of the mails indicates a national policy of discountenancing abortion as inimical to the

national life.” Id. In short, Bours contradicts OLC’s argument, undermining OLC’s claim

of a “longstanding judicial construction.”

OLC’s claim of judicial consensus on this point rapidly disintegrates. It is doubtful that

every other circuit would presume that it knows better and Congress didn’t “underst[an]d”

what it was doing, as the Second Circuit did:

[W]e are satisfied that this statute, as well as all the acts we have referred to,

embraced only such articles as Congress would have denounced as immoral if it

had understood all the conditions under which they were to be used. Its design, in

our opinion, was not to prevent the importation, sale, or carriage by mail of things

which might intelligently be employed by conscientious and competent physicians

for the purpose of saving life or promoting the well being of their patients.

One Package, 86 F.2d at 739. In fact, other circuits, including the Fifth Circuit, have applied

the statute with respect to abortion without the same modification. See, e.g., Lee v. United

States, 156 F. 948, 949 (9th Cir. 1907); Clark v. United States, 202 F. 740, 741 (8th Cir. 1912);

Weathers v. United States, 126 F.2d 118 (5th Cir. 1942). OLC’s claim of consensus amounts

to a few strident opinions from the Second Circuit in a different context that were followed

by two other circuits. This is “neither a settled judicial construction nor one which [the

Court] would be justified in presuming Congress, by its silence, impliedly approved.”

United States v. Powell, 379 U.S. 48, 55, n. 13 (1964).

2. Congress did not “ratify” the Biden administration’s preferred

construction of the Comstock Act.

Neither of the requirements to assume that Congress ratified a settled judicial construction are present here. As discussed above, the “supposed judicial consensus” is not “so

broad and unquestioned that [the Court] must presume Congress knew of and endorsed it.”

Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, 543 U.S. 335, 349 (2005). And as OLC’s cited authority

(at 11) acknowledges, only where a statute is “given a uniform interpretation by inferior

courts” will “a later version of that act perpetuating the wording [be] presumed to carry

forward that interpretation.” Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519, 536 (2015) (emphasis added) (quoting A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 322 (2012)).

Nor did Congress “simply reenact” §§ 1461-62 “without change,” which is the second

requirement to presume ratification. Jama, 543 U.S. at 349. Since the cases OLC relies on,

Congress has amended the Act several times, notably removing the provisions related to

contraception altogether but leaving the prohibition on mailing chemical abortion drugs.

All. for Hippocratic Med., 78 F.4th at 269 (Ho., J., concurring in part) (citing Pub. L. No.

91-662, §§ 3–4, 84 Stat. 1973, 1973 (1971)). Further, in 1978, Congress considered—and rejected—amendments to the Act specifying that it applies only to “illegal abortions”—the

exact amendment the Biden OLC wanted to read into the statute. Id. at 269 (Ho, J., concurring in part). And contrary to OLC’s argument that the Court should presume that Congress knew about and accepted the judicial interpretation it claims, legislative history

shows the opposite. A House subcommittee report accompanying the proposed bill stated

that

under current law, the offender commits an offense whenever he ‘knowingly’ mails

any of the designated abortion materials. [The proposed modification] requires

proof that the offender specifically intended that the mailed materials be used to

produce an illegal abortion. An abortion is ‘illegal’ if it is contrary to the laws of

the state in which it is performed. 29

This shows that when considering the exact change OLC argues to be adopted by judicial (and bureaucratic) fiat, Congress clearly understood the statute to mean just what it

says and kept that meaning. Further, in 1996, Congress “had the opportunity to remove

‘abortion’ from the Comstock Act altogether,” but it did not. All. for Hippocratic Med., 78

F.4th at 269 (Ho., J., concurring in part).

Courts “do not lightly assume that Congress has omitted from its adopted text requirements that it nonetheless intends to apply, and our reluctance is even greater when Congress has shown . . . that it knows how to make such a requirement manifest.” Jama, 543

U.S. at 341. There is no basis for the Court to ignore the plain text of the statute and assume

that Congress ratified the decisions of a few isolated judicial opinions from over thirty years

earlier when it declined to adopt the very modification the Biden administration claimed is

law.

Report of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice on Recodification of Federal Criminal

Law, Committee on the Judiciary, H. Rpt. 95-29, at 42 (1979), available at

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/63344NCJRS.pdf (last accessed Feb. 2, 2026).

CONCLUSION

The applications for stay pending appeal should be denied.

Respectfully submitted.

Heather Gebelin Hacker

Counsel of Record

HACKER STEPHENS LLP

108 Wild Basin Rd. South

Suite 250

Austin, Texas 78746

(512) 399-3022

heather@hackerstephens.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

May 2026

APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Amici Curiae ...................................................................................................................... 1a

LIST OF AMICI CURIAE 113 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

28 United States Senators:

Bill Cassidy, M.D. (LA)

Majority Leader John Thune (SD)

Jim Banks (IN)

Marsha Blackburn (TN)

Katie Boyd Britt (AL)

Ted Budd (NC)

John Cornyn (TX)

Tom Cotton (AR)

Kevin Cramer (ND)

Mike Crapo (ID)

Ted Cruz (TX)

Steve Daines (MT)

Deb Fischer (NE)

Lindsey O. Graham (SC)

Josh Hawley (MO)

John Hoeven (ND)

Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS)

John Kennedy (LA)

James Lankford (OK)

Roger Marshall, M.D. (KS)

Jerry Moran (KS)

Rand Paul, M.D. (KY)

Pete Ricketts (NE)

James Risch (ID)

Rick Scott (FL)

Tim Sheehy (MT)

Tommy Tuberville (AL)

Todd Young (IN)

85 United States Representatives:

Christopher H. Smith (NJ)

Speaker Mike Johnson (LA)

Majority Leader Steve Scalise (LA)

Majority Whip Tom Emmer (MN)

Chairwoman Lisa C. McClain (MI)

Robert B. Aderholt (AL)

Mark Alford (MO)

Jodey C. Arrington (TX)

Aaron Bean (FL)

Cliff Bentz (OR)

Andy Biggs (AZ)

Sheri Biggs (SC)

Gus M. Bilirakis (FL)

Lauren Boebert (CO)

Mike Bost (IL)

Josh Brecheen (OK)

Eric Burlison (MO)

Kat Cammack (FL)

John Carter (TX)

Ben Cline (VA)

Andrew S. Clyde (GA)

Jeff Crank (CO)

Eric A. “Rick” Crawford (AR)

Warren Davidson (OH)

Troy Downing (MT)

Jake Ellzey (TX)

Ron Estes (KS)

Julie Fedorchak (ND)

Michelle Fischbach (MN)

Scott Fitzgerald (WI)

Mike Flood (NE)

Vince Fong (CA)

Virginia Foxx (NC)

C. Scott Franklin (FL)

Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S. (AZ)

Sam Graves (MO)

H. Morgan Griffith (VA)

Glenn Grothman (WI)

Michael Guest (MS)

Brett Guthrie (KY)

Harriet M. Hageman (WY)

Pat Harrigan (NC)

Andy Harris, M.D. (MD)

Mark Harris (NC)

Diana Harshbarger (TN)

Clay Higgins (LA)

Erin Houchin (IN)

Richard Hudson (NC)

Dusty Johnson (SD)

Jim Jordan (OH)

Mike Kelly (PA)

Nick Langworthy (NY)

Julia Letlow, Ph.D. (LA)

Addison P. McDowell (NC)

John J. McGuire III (VA)

Mark Messmer (IN)

Mary E. Miller (IL)

John Moolenaar (MI)

Barry Moore (AL)

Blake D. Moore (UT)

Riley M. Moore (WV)

Tim Moore (NC)

Nathaniel Moran (TX)

Ralph Norman (SC)

Andy Ogles (TN)

Robert F. Onder (MO)

Gary Palmer (AL)

August Pfluger (TX)

Mike D. Rogers (AL)

David Rouzer (NC)

Chip Roy (TX)

Keith Self (TX)

Pete Sessions (TX)

Michael K. Simpson (ID)

Dale W. Strong (AL)

Marlin A. Stutzman (IN)

Claudia Tenney (NY)

Glenn “GT” Thompson (PA)

Beth Van Duyne (TX)

Matt Van Epps (TN)

Randy K. Weber (TX)

Daniel Webster (FL)

Roger Williams (TX)

Joe Wilson (SC)

Rudy Yakym III (IN)

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.