Yes, and the Judge was only ruling on the constitutionality of the DoD mandate and it was not an evidentiary hearing.
There was a very underhanded sleight of hand that the DoD used to argue that even if FDA did approve it illegally, the injury suffered by the plaintiffs is not due to FDA but rather due to DoD's mandate which they claimed would have gone ahead even without the approval, but they also acknowledge that it would have needed a Presidential EO, which they didn't have.
Personally, I find this argument so blatantly fake, and the judge not pointing it out more directly was a disappointment, even though the made the distinction between the two entities.
I believe this legal opinion can be used in other cases that may not even be related to the DoD mandate.
Yes, and the Judge was only ruling on the constitutionality of the DoD mandate and it was not an evidentiary hearing.
There was a very underhanded sleight of hand that the DoD used to argue that even if FDA did approve it illegally, the injury suffered by the plaintiffs is not due to FDA but rather due to DoD's mandate which they claimed would have gone ahead even without the approval, but they also acknowledge that it would have needed a Presidential EO, which they didn't have.
Personally, I find this argument so blatantly fake, and the judge not pointing it out more directly was a disappointment, even though the made the distinction between the two entities.
I believe this legal opinion can be used in other cases that may not even be related to the DoD mandate.