A few days ago, I wrote a blog that as a long-time policywatcher - not an attorney - I felt several recent Supreme Court cases were supportive of the ACLA's case against FDA. See June 21 blog here.
For June 28, I've added an update.
I would suggest that the court's anti-Chevron ruling in Loper v Raimond also supports ACLA v FDA. Loper finds that courts are not obligated to defer to an agency when a statute is ambiguous. Rather, a court should review the statute in question de novo.
Here, that would mean a court does not any longer need to defer to FDA whether the 1976 intention of Congress was for [a laboratory of people and items conducting processes] to be collectively commonly and normally understood to be "a medical device.” For example, according to 1976 dictionaries or usage at the time.
##
A new subscription article at 360DX, by Adam Bonislawsky, triages the opinions of several attorneys re the ACLA legal case.
##
The presidential election could also be a factor.
