Astrid Galvan and Justin Pitchard report for Association Press:
That case was wrongly decided, in my opinion. The Supreme Court 30 years ago decided in Heckler v. Chaney that the FDA has discretion to not enforce the restrictions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in a context where it was never meant to apply and where its requirements make no sense. What is "safe and effective" for an execution drug? Effective for this purpose is necessarily the ultimate unsafe. However, the Cook court (the same court the Supreme Court reversed in Heckler) thought the importation law was distinguishable from the domestic use law at issue in Heckler.
The state have partly themselves to blame for not fighting that decision. Now they need to vigorously take this up to the Supreme Court to have Cook overruled or get Congress to abrogate it by statute. Prohibiting the importation of the drug that is clearly superior to the midazolam approved in Glossip is just crazy.
For the full background and a legislative proposal, see this paper.
Compounding the nation's severe shortage of execution drugs, federal authorities have confiscated shipments of a lethal-injection chemical that Arizona and Texas tried to bring in from abroad, saying such imports are illegal.Multiple errors in the story here. Thiopental has also been used alone. When Ohio pioneered the single-drug method, it used thiopental. The drug was used in medical treatment for decades, and there is no prohibition against using it. No company ever went through the FDA approval process for it, probably because it has been around since before such approvals were required.
The Food and Drug Administration said Friday that it impounded orders of sodium thiopental, an anesthetic that has been used in past executions in combination with drugs that paralyze the muscles and stop the heart. It currently has no legal uses in the U.S.
"Courts have concluded that sodium thiopental for the injection in humans is an unapproved drug and may not be imported into the country," FDA spokesman Jeff Ventura said in a statement.Actually there is only one case. The "courts," plural, are the District Court and Court of Appeals in that one case, Cook v. FDA.
That case was wrongly decided, in my opinion. The Supreme Court 30 years ago decided in Heckler v. Chaney that the FDA has discretion to not enforce the restrictions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in a context where it was never meant to apply and where its requirements make no sense. What is "safe and effective" for an execution drug? Effective for this purpose is necessarily the ultimate unsafe. However, the Cook court (the same court the Supreme Court reversed in Heckler) thought the importation law was distinguishable from the domestic use law at issue in Heckler.
The state have partly themselves to blame for not fighting that decision. Now they need to vigorously take this up to the Supreme Court to have Cook overruled or get Congress to abrogate it by statute. Prohibiting the importation of the drug that is clearly superior to the midazolam approved in Glossip is just crazy.
For the full background and a legislative proposal, see this paper.
Continuing with problems with the AP story:
The answer is very simple. States know what they are getting because they have the drugs tested. It's not difficult. If the reporters had bothered to ask someone knowledgeable on the other side, they would have known that.
A lawyer who has challenged Texas' death row practices questioned why any state would want to run the risk of a botched execution by buying drugs from an overseas supplier whose manufacturing standards are not well known.Now there's some fair and balanced journalism for you. A lawyer for one side -- the notoriously loose with the truth anti-death-penalty side -- makes an outrageous, inflammatory, unfounded accusation, and it is printed without any response or rebuttal.
"We have no idea what we're getting. None. It could be water. It could be witch hazel. It could be white vinegar," Maurie Levin said. "We literally have no idea."
The answer is very simple. States know what they are getting because they have the drugs tested. It's not difficult. If the reporters had bothered to ask someone knowledgeable on the other side, they would have known that.

How the condemned had the right to dictate US importation policy is, um, unclear.