Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z Document 137 Filed 04/07/23 Page 63 of 67 PageID 4485
Mendota Water Auth. v. Jewell, 969 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1215 (E.D. Cal. 2013); see also R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. v. FDA, No. 23-60037 (5th Cir. Mar. 23, 2023)[1] (noting FDA’s public interest argument was “obviously colored by the FDA’s view of the merits”); Sierra Forest Legacy v. Sherman, 646 F.3d 1161, 1186 (9th Cir. 2011) (“If the federal government’s experts were always entitled to deference concerning the equities of an injunction, substantive relief against federal government policies would be nearly unattainable, as government experts will likely attest that the public interest favors the federal government’s preferred policy.”).
- F. Preliminary Injunction Would Serve the Public Interest
The third and fourth factors — assessing the harm to the opposing party and weighing the public interest — “merge when the Government is the opposing party.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). “[T]he public interest weighs strongly in favor of preventing unsafe drugs from entering the market.” Hill Dermaceuticals, 524 F. Supp. 2d at 12. “[T]here is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.” State v. Biden, 10 F.4th 538, 560 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal marks omitted). And “there is a strong public interest in meticulous compliance with the law by public officials.” Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Espy, 814 F. Supp. 142, 152 (D.D.C. 1993); see also State v. Biden, 10 F.4th at 559. “Indeed, the Constitution itself declares a prime public interest that the President and, by necessary inference, his appointees in the Executive Branch ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’” Id. (internal marks omitted). Additionally, Defendants’ actions harm States’ efforts to regulate chemical abortion “in the interests of life, health, and liberty.” ECF No. 100 at 21. “The Court appreciates FDA’s institutional interest but, given its long-standing disregard of [Plaintiffs’] Citizen Petition[s], its argument has a hollow center.” Bayer HealthCare, 942 F. Supp. 2d at 26. To the extent Defendants
63
