Two Democratic members of Congress urge Biden to ignore court ruling on abortion pill.

Biden prefers a wait-and-see approach to the rule of law.

A federal judge in Texas has ruled that the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone is unlawful, and has blocked that approval. Mifepristone is the first pill in the two-drug medication abortion regimen used, according to this report, in over half of pregnancy terminations in the United States

The Texas ruling, which has nationwide effect (but see below), will be delayed for a week to give the Biden administration time to seek a stay from the court of appeals, pending appeal.

But that’s not good enough for some congressional Democrats. Sen. Ron Wyden insists that the government ignore the Texas judge’s ruling even if no stay is granted.

Wyden says:

I believe the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to ignore this ruling, which is why I’m again calling on President Biden and the FDA to do just that. The FDA, doctors, and pharmacies can and must go about their jobs like nothing has changed and keep mifepristone accessible to women across America. If they don’t, the consequences of banning the most common method of abortion in every single state will be devastating.

Rep. Alexandria Cortez-Ocasio agrees. She argues that the “deeply partisan and unfounded nature” of the court’s decision undermines its legitimacy, and thus the White House should “ignore” it.

Here, then, is what the rule of law means to these two lawmakers: If a judge issues an important order you really, really disagree with, disobey the order, especially if the judge was appointed by a president from the other party.

Recall, however, that liberal judges appointed by Democratic presidents issued orders on key issues like immigration that President Trump hated because he thought they made America less secure. Trump obeyed every one of them. Yet, the left constantly portrayed him as an enemy of the rule of law.

So where does Joe Biden stand on whether to ignore the order of the Texas court? Apparently, he wants to wait and see.

According to Politico:

The Biden administration is afraid any public defiance of the Friday-night ruling could hurt its position while the case moves through the appeals process.

A person who is advising the White House on legal strategy, granted anonymity to discuss the ongoing litigation, said administration officials think it would be “premature” and “pretty risky” to take the step Wyden is calling for, because it’s possible a higher court would reverse the decision by Texas U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmayrk.

“They’re able to present themselves right now as the adults in the room who care about the rule of law,” the person said. “But that posture would come under pressure if they jumped out of the gate and said they wouldn’t abide by the ruling.”

If this reporting accurately reflects the administration’s stance, then for Biden and his team the problem with publicly adopting the defiant Wyden/Ocasio-Cortez line isn’t that it contradicts basic rule-of-law principles. The problem is that doing so might hurt the government’s chances on appeal by undermining its effort to seem adult.

It’s all about the optics. Such is the depth of Joe Biden’s commitment to the rule of law, assuming Politico’s reporting is accurate.

If the government loses on appeal, would Biden follow the advice of Wyden and Ocasio-Cortez and ignore a court order? I’d like to think not.

But a decent regard for the rule of law should have caused Biden already to reject the possibility of defiance, now that members of his party have raised it. Instead, Biden’s team reportedly is signaling a wait-and-see attitude towards compliance.

Maybe Biden wants to keep open (but not embrace) the possibility of defiance in the hope that reviewing courts will rule his way to avoid a constitutional crisis. If so, Biden is playing with fire.

Almost immediately after the Texas court issued its opinion, a federal court in Washington state reached a very different conclusion about the validity of the FDA’s abortion drug approval. That court ordered the FDA not to “alter the status quo and rights [relating] to the availability of Mifepristone. . .in Plaintiff States.” (Emphasis added) There are 17 of these states, plus the District of Columbia. They constitute a majority of the states that permit abortion.

The Washington decision may complicate life for the FDA. However, I don’t think it provides a basis for the FDA to ignore the Texas order — at least as that order regards jurisdictions not covered by the Washington order.

The Washington decision increases the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will resolve this issue. I think the Biden administration, if it’s still around, probably will adhere to the Supreme Court’s decision, whatever the outcome.

But given the talk of defiance by Wyden and Ocasio-Cortez, the administration shouldn’t wait and see. It should state in no uncertain terms its commitment to abiding by court orders issued at every stage of the litigation to the extent required by law.