| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the 1991 case of Leona Benten et al. v. David Kessler, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) et al., the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a temporary restraining order should be issued against the FDA to prevent them from seizing imported RU-486 pills (a drug used for medical abortions). The plaintiff, Leona Benten, had brought these pills into the United States from England with an intent to use it for her own personal medical needs. However, upon arrival in New York City airport customs officials seized her medication under orders from FDA which considered its importation illegal due to lack of approval by them. The District Court initially granted a temporary restraining order allowing Ms.Benten access to her medication but this decision was reversed by Appeals court citing that she failed to show irreparable harm if denied access as alternatives were available domestically .The Supreme court upheld this reversal stating that while they sympathized with Ms.Benten's situation ,they could not interfere in matters related strictly within administrative agencies' jurisdiction unless there is clear violation of constitutional rights or federal law.
In the dissenting opinion for Benten v. Kessler, Justice Scalia argued that the court should not have granted a stay of deportation because it did not meet the necessary criteria. He believed that there was no clear and irreparable harm to Ms. Benten if she were deported as her only claim was inconvenience in obtaining an abortion abroad, which does not qualify as substantial injury under legal standards. Furthermore, he contended that granting such stays could potentially encourage other pregnant women seeking abortions to come to America illegally with hopes of similar treatment from courts. Lastly, he disagreed with majority's interpretation of Roe v Wade; while it protects a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability without undue interference from state law, it doesn’t guarantee access within U.S borders for non-residents or illegal immigrants.