New York, April 29, 2011—Columbia Law School Associate Professor Abbe Gluck, an expert on health law and policy as well as the interpretation of legislation and statutes, offered these insights about today’s federal appeals court ruling upholding funding for embryonic stem-cell research.
“First, it provides a strong hint as to how the Court is likely to rule on the merits of the case: A key question in deciding whether the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction should be issued is whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of the case—and the Court here concluded they were not.”
“Second, the Court accorded deference to the interpretation accorded the statute by the expert agency charged with administering it—National Institutes of Health. And third, the Court made some important inferences about Congressional intent, and so grounded the decision not only in its reading of the statute but also in conclusions about what Congress likely wanted.
“Finally, the opinion is significant because the contrary result—an order freezing use of federal funds on research on existing stem cell lines—could have jeopardized much of the incredibly important research underway.”
“Although stem-cell research generally has been a politically charged issue, this decision was handed down by two Republican-appointed judges.”
“And it is worth emphasizing that the interpretation of the statute offered by NIH is not an Obama-Administration-only reading. In fact, its reading of the statute—that federal funds can be used for embryonic stem cell research once stem-line lines have been created—was adopted by President Bush as well.”
“The only difference between the Obama and Bush Administration positions on this issue is that Bush limited the funds to stem-cell lines already in existence when his policy was issued, while Obama has allowed federal funds to be used for stem-cell research on new lines as well.”
