News

Student Challenges Himself With  3+3 Program to Earn Degrees in Both Business and Law

Chris Salotto standing in the stairwell

Chris Salotto ’22 (WSM), L’24, is not one to back away from a challenge. So, when the Fishkill, New York, native chose a college for his undergraduate degree, he opted for Syracuse University’s 3+3 program, which combines a business degree from the Martin J. Whitman School of Management with a law degree from the Syracuse University College of Law. And, while his interests lean toward business, Salotto is confident that having a law degree will surely be beneficial to his career, as well.

The Whitman School and Syracuse Law allow students who are academically qualified to complete the core requirements of a business degree in just three years and then transition to the law school. Students must apply to the 3+3 program in the first year of their undergraduate studies, getting a conditional admittance to Syracuse Law. After their junior year at Whitman, students begin law school (assuming they meet the academic requirements) but do not receive their bachelor’s degree until the first year at Syracuse Law is completed. Aside from finishing both degrees in only six years, instead of seven, there are also financial benefits, including merit scholarships that can offset a significant portion of the College of Law’s tuition.

Chris Salotto standing in front of a glass wall
Chris Salotto as a student at the Whitman School of Management

Salotto successfully completed his first three years of undergraduate work as a supply chain management major, which included a summer internship at Boeing, before transitioning over to Syracuse Law. His desire to pursue law comes from his family. His father has worked in law enforcement for 25 years, and his mother is a family law attorney and town judge. That combined influence helped Salotto see the value of a law degree, but it also made him want to carve his own path toward corporate law, specifically a desire to work as in-house counsel one day.

“My mom played a huge part in encouraging me,” he says. “She told me that 1L is very rigorous, but to fight through it and graduate because, even if I didn’t want to ultimately become a lawyer, having that degree would open up a lot of opportunities for me.”

A student sits and studies with a book in a brightly lit space

He did persevere as a 1L and went on to succeed in the program. Salotto has gained a great deal of practical experience as a 3L, including working as a legal intern at CooperSurgical, Inc., a medical device company; and serving as a corporate counsel extern at SRC, Inc., a research and development company contracting with the federal government.

Salotto has taken an interest in activities on campus, too. This year, he worked at the law school’s Transactional Law Clinic as a student attorney, helping entrepreneurial-minded people in the community form their own businesses. His work led to the formation of a couple of nonprofit corporations, as well as the establishment of a few LLCs. As a 2L, he worked with the law school’s Innovation Law Center as a research associate, where local entrepreneurs can get information on patents and research the requirements for intellectual property (IP) protection. His work involved compiling reports and helping entrepreneurs apply the information gathered to their own innovations. Salotto found this work very rewarding and knew it was an important skillset for his future ambitions.

A student turns his head and looks out the window

While working on a 3+3 degree has certainly had its challenges, it is about to pay off as he prepares to cross the finish line at graduation this May. He intends to pass the bar and start his career at KPMG U.S., where he interned in the summer of 2023, as an international tax associate. He has been a KPMG campus ambassador while in law school and hopes to continue this role when employed there, building and maintaining a relationship between Syracuse Law and the Big Four accounting and professional services firm.

“I would tell anyone that is interested in business and the law to apply to the 3+3 program,” he says. “It keeps your possibilities open, and, even if you get a law degree, you don’t have to practice law a day in your life, but you’ll have that valuable background to bring into the business world. Best of all, it shows that you’re willing to invest in yourself, which is something any employer wants to see. It hasn’t been easy, but I already know it’s been worth it, and I’m eager to see what the future holds for me.”

Professor Gregory Germain: Harvey Pecker Testimony “Had Very Little to do” With the Charges Against Trump

Professor Gregory Germain commented to Salon on the testimony of former AMI executive Harvey Pecker during the Donald Trump hush money trial. In the article, Germain provides a legal perspective on Pecker’s testimony and other aspects of the trial.

Because the former AMI exec only referred Stormy Daniels’ story to Michael Cohen and wasn’t involved in Daniels’ payment or its documentation, Trump could “argue on appeal that the Court should not have admitted evidence of the unrelated Pecker crimes” should he be convicted, Germain explained.

“The judge allowed Pecker and [will allow] Karen MacDougal to testify, even though the potential crimes they were involved with had nothing to do with the charges in the indictment,” Germain said. “The Court of Appeals just overturned Harvey Weinstein’s conviction because the trial court allowed the admission of evidence of prior acts that had nothing to do with the charges, and I think the DA’s attempt to introduce evidence from Karen MacDougal that will be prejudicial to Trump but has really nothing to do with the document charges in the indictment will create additional problems for the DA on appeal if he is successful in obtaining a conviction.”

Professor Roy Gutterman L’00 Writes “Spectacle of O.J. Trial is One Reason We Won’t Get to See Trump’s”

Every generation has a Trial of the Century. The recent death of O.J. Simpson resurrected a courtroom drama that continues to span generations. As the Trial of the Century closes in on its 30-year anniversary, a new legal drama is about to unfold in a New York City courtroom: People of the State of New York vs. Donald J. Trump.

Cable news anchors in front of the courthouse in New York City breathlessly invoked the term “historic” for former president Donald Trump’s hush money criminal trial within a week of the death of the protagonist of one of the biggest courtroom dramas the public has seen.

The public should get to see Trump on trial. But we won’t, in part because of the circus the Simpson murder trial became.

The Simpson trial is still a touchstone for a range of socio-political and legal issues, including celebrity, power, race, money, domestic violence, and entertainment. It has also stood as a symbol for the hazards of televising criminal trials.

The fully televised trial captivated audiences. It made bigger celebrities of all the “Dream Team” lawyers involved in the defense, the prosecutors, police, and some witnesses, as well as many of the reporters covering the spectacle. It generated books and movies and even gave the public a first glimpse of both DNA scientific evidence and the Kardashians.

As much as the concept of the “trial of the century” is temporal, it is also geographic. In an era before cable television and digital streaming, trials really were a local spectacle. Nothing illustrates that better than the courtroom scene in “To Kill a Mockingbird,” where the courtroom was packed with community observers. Here in Syracuse, we have had some high-profile, perhaps even potentially sensationalistic trials over the years. The 2009 trial of Stacey Castor, the anti-freeze “Black Widow” convicted of poisoning her husband, was videotaped for later broadcast. The 2015 murder trial of Robert Neulander, in another era, might have achieved that kind of tabloid-type exposure seen with some recent trials — Casey Anthony in Florida and Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard.

Thirty years on, the legal importance of the O.J. Simpson case seems somewhat irrelevant. The trial yielded its pop culture moments, including catchphrases that live on today — “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” As a primer on legal concepts and the importance of how Americans perform our justice in public, the trial served an important purpose. But it became an out-of-control spectacle from the beginning that blurred the lines between justice and entertainment.

Today, there is no doubt the public would benefit from having a seat in the New York City or federal courtrooms where Trump is being tried. Likewise, the public would also benefit if the United States SupremeCourt televised its oral arguments.

In the post-COVID-19 world, the U.S. Supreme Court now live-streams the audio of oral arguments, a tremendous step forward for legal observers, reporters, and cable news outlets.

But these New York state and federal courtrooms where Trump is being tried will remain off limits to televised coverage, ostensibly to maintain the decorum of the court, to ensure certain elements of privacy and to preserve certain Sixth Amendment rights for a fair trial.

The technology has evolved to the point where the cameras would not be a distraction for those in the courtroom, especially jurors, though the lawyers certainly might be. But once a jury is selected, judges can clamp down the courtroom and try to make sure jurors are only weighing the evidence that is legally admitted. Judges have tremendous power to rein in misbehavior, especially when it is the lawyers who are misbehaving.

But the power to hold someone, particularly a misbehaving lawyer or even an obstreperous defendant, in contempt of court requires some ability to enforce rules. A judge cannot enforce rules with a party who does not believe the rules apply to him. It would be interesting to see how that would play out on TV.

More than 20 years ago, comedian Jon Stewart facetiously coined the phrase, “The Trial of the Century of the Week,” which could easily be applied to Trump’s legal disputes across jurisdictions. Of course, they are a far cry from the televised spectacle of the O.J. Simpson case.

Unlike the Simpson case, nobody in any of the Trump legal dramas was murdered. Even today, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, who were brutally stabbed to death, seem like minor characters or a footnote in a larger story. But with the multitude of Trump cases, the breathless newscasters cry that democracy weighs in the balance of justice. The public ought to be able to watch that.

Professor Roy Gutterman L’00

Director, Tully Center for Free Speech
Professor, S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communication
Professor of Law, College of Law (by courtesy appointment)

Professor Mary Szto Uses a Mock Shareholder Meeting to Teach Corporate Governance

Professor Mary Szto’s Business Associations class recently held a mock shareholders meeting that featured a class-wide role-playing exercise. Students portrayed corporate C-suite executives, potential board members, and shareholders to demonstrate various legal issues and challenges in shareholder meetings.

Students selected the company, Nvidia, the AI computing giant; volunteered for roles (CEO, CTO, Chief Legal Officer, Board of Director candidates, and more); and created shareholder proxy materials. They also drafted and presented shareholder proposals.

“They created a shareholder meeting that demonstrated how C-suite leaders tackle critical aspects of running a company,” says Szto. “The whole course came to life!  They demonstrated corporate governance of a public company, fiduciary duties, and risk management, among other concepts. I am proud of how well the whole class participated.  It was very lively and a lot of fun.”

Food for the shareholders meeting was provided by LexisNexis.

Report of the Mock Nvidia Shareholders’ Meeting

By the Media Team of Carlos Dominguez Scheid LL.M’24, Firdevs Okatan LL.M.’24, and Rabiya Shamim LL.M.’24.

In late March, in a culmination of weeks of preparation, the Business Associations course led by Professor Mary Szto, held a captivating Mock Nvidia Shareholders’ Meeting. The students immersed themselves in the complexities of corporate governance, bringing theory to life in a practical setting. J.D. and LL.M. students worked together to recreate a shareholder’s meeting as real as possible.

As the room buzzed with anticipation the attendees took their seats. Executives took center stage, delivering compelling presentations.  CEO LL.M. student Paulo Andrade, Chief Legal Officer (CLO) 2L Ahmad Salman, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) 2L Charles Sirotek, and Chief Technology Officer (CTO) 2L Amanda Winn each delivered speeches that captured the essence of leadership and vision.

The meeting covered the CEO’s vision of AI’s potential, the CFO’s positive financial report, and the CTO’s presentation of technological advancements. The Chief Legal Officer reassured shareholders about the company’s standards, while shareholder proposals for governance transparency and concerns about AI misuse were discussed. The meeting also involved electing a new Board of Directors, a Q&A session, and a dialogue on balancing technological progress with ethical responsibilities, concluding with the CEO’s call for ongoing engagement.

The agenda was meticulously planned, covering crucial aspects such as the approval of board nominees and shareholder proposals. Yet, what set this event apart was the students’ involvement in every facet. Teams orchestrated catering, music, media coverage, and financial reports with precision.

The atmosphere mirrored a real shareholders’ meeting, offering participants a glimpse into the process of corporate decision-making. As the event drew to a close, attendees departed with newfound insights and a deeper understanding of the corporate landscape. The Mock Nvidia Shareholders’ Meeting stood as a testament to the academic rigor and practical learning fostered within the Business Associations course.

Ahmad Salman, Paulo Andrade, Amanda Winn and Charles Sirotek
Shareholders
Paulo Andrade as CEO
Charles Sirotek as CFO
Shareholders making a proposal
Shareholders voting on the proposal

JDi Program Allows Tax Manager to Pursue Career as Tax Counsel at Private Trust Company 

Kathryn Martin headshot

“I’m working with the best of the best, and that makes class discussions so much more diverse and valuable.”

Kathryn Martin L’24

With a background in finance and accounting, Kathryn Martin L’24 was working as a tax manager for a private trust company in 2011 when she started considering law school as a way to advance her career. It was the company’s president who told her that working in the private trust company industry would require a law degree if she wanted to move up the ladder.

Martin was living in Reno, Nevada, with her husband and children, while also caring for her dad and her mother, who has Parkinson’s disease. There was no way she could leave Reno to attend a residential law school. So, she put that idea on hold and instead earned a master’s degree in accounting from the University of Nevada, Reno, and became a CPA.

Seven years ago, Martin moved to another private trust company and again was told that a law degree was essential. A long-time fan of Syracuse Men’s Basketball, she looked into the JDinteractive (JDi) program at Syracuse University College of Law and thought an online program might work for her. “It was the one and only law school I applied to,” she says. “I just felt that I had to go there.”

The JDi program has proven to be a good fit with the demands of Martin’s job. “Time was a concern. I knew law school would be a lot of work, but, like any overachiever, you make it work,” she explains. “It’s not easy, but the flexibility of the program has really allowed me to keep my job, be with my family and go to law school at the same time.”

Students sit in a classroom

Aside from the flexibility, Martin has been pleased with the opportunities that the JDi program offers. She finds it interesting to learn about the backgrounds of others in her cohort, most of whom are high-level professionals. “I’m working with the best of the best, and that makes class discussions so much more diverse and valuable,” she explains.

Another advantage has been the variety of speakers who have come into online classes from wherever they are located—something that would not be possible in a residential program. “I took a class on activist investing and corporate governance from Adjunct Professor Jared Landaw, and he brought in very accomplished speakers almost every week to give their perspectives,” Martin says. “Having access to all of these different people from a variety of backgrounds has been completely rewarding.”

Martin has also attended six of the residency programs during her time in the JDi program. Most recently she traveled to Los Angeles for a residency on bankruptcy law with Distinguished Lecturer Richard Levy L’77. She says the highlight of the trip was listening to distinguished alumna and Chair of Syracuse Law’s board of advisors Melanie Gray L’81 talk about her experience as a woman in law and how she’s faced diversity in her career.

Students stand in a group and listen to an alumna speak
Melanie Gray L’81 interfaces with students at the Bankruptcy Residency in Los Angeles, California

“I soaked in everything she said like a sponge,” Martin says, noting she also had the opportunity to attend a bankruptcy hearing and ask questions of three judges afterwards. “It was interesting because a lot of times, people think of bankruptcy as a negative thing, but the judges spoke about how it allows people to take risks and have a safety net to fall back on.”

She’s been to the Syracuse University campus for all the other residencies: notably one on elder law with David M. Levy L’48 Professor of Law Nina Kohn. “This was my favorite residency, particularly because I’ve had to navigate the nursing home system due to my mom’s Parkinson’s disease,” she says.

“…I am grateful to the professors at Syracuse Law who helped me map out my career choices and prepared me for this next step. The Syracuse Law JDi program has been an excellent experience that has allowed me to build on my finance and accounting background by adding critical components of the law to my experience. It has opened a door to an exciting new chapter for me.”

Kathryn Martin L’24

As Martin gets ready to graduate this spring, she is also preparing for a career change from tax director to a tax counsel position, working in tax and estate planning with her current employer.

“As a tax director, I often come into transactions once they are already underway, but having a law degree will allow me to help create strategies to assist our clients from the start,” Martin says. “I am looking forward to this shift in my career, and I am grateful to the professors at Syracuse Law who helped me map out my career choices and prepared me for this next step. The Syracuse Law JDi program has been an excellent experience that has allowed me to build on my finance and accounting background by adding critical components of the law to my experience. It has opened a door to an exciting new chapter for me.”

Students walk down a street in Los Angeles

A Serendipitous Connection

George and Sheliah smile for the camera at brunch

As a JDinteractive (JDi) student, George Saad L’25 has never let the distance from campus dampen his school spirit. On weekends, Saad often sports his favorite Syracuse University pullovers and baseball caps for comfortable afternoons around Phoenix, Arizona. It was one such weekend during brunch at a local diner that Saad’s Orange pride caught the attention of a fellow diner, Sheilah (Ragan) Lavelle ’59, L’62, leading to their introduction and the beginning of a remarkable bond.

Saad was fortunate to pursue his education in the United Kingdom before furthering his studies in Canada, where he attained both undergraduate and master’s degrees in economics. Subsequently, he ventured to the United States to embark on a career path centered on education and curriculum development. Despite achieving success in his field, Saad found himself grappling with frustration stemming from the complexities of the K-12 education system. Motivated by a desire for meaningful change, he pursued a career shift, earning a master’s in business administration (MBA) from Northeastern University.

It was during this transformative period that Saad discovered his passion for the law and commenced his quest for a J.D. He was particularly drawn to Syracuse Law’s JDi program, which offered him a pathway to realize his aspirations. Now enrolled as an online student, Saad is enjoying learning about the diverse practice of law and the deep bond he’s forged with his fellow JDi cohort, noting that “many have become lifelong friends.” Despite the physical distance separating him from campus, Syracuse Law is close to his heart, as evidenced by the Orange sweatshirt he proudly wore that fateful day in Phoenix.

George and Sheliah smile for the camera

It was Lavelle who first noticed the Orange pride, asking Saad if he was a Syracuse alumnus. They were excited to learn they both shared a connection to Syracuse Law. While Saad is one of the early cohorts in the school’s JDi program, Lavelle was a trailblazer in her own right, being one of only two females to graduate in the Class of 1962. Lavelle always wanted to be a lawyer, even as a child growing up in Central New York. However, in those times, many—including her own family—didn’t see the value in legal education for women. It was her stepmother that encouraged her to pursue her J.D., after receiving her undergraduate degree from Syracuse’s Martin J. Whitman School of Management. In 1975, she relocated to Arizona with her late husband, John, where she established her own practice advocating for indigent youth who had experienced sexual and physical abuse. Lavelle’s dedication to serving her community continued until her retirement. Now a widow, Lavelle lives alone with her two rescue dogs, Trixie and Lily.

What began as a casual conversation over coffee has blossomed into a profound friendship grounded in mutual respect and a love for Syracuse University. Despite their differing backgrounds and life experiences, Saad and Lavelle found common ground in their alma mater, forging a connection that has become dear to both. “She’s such a gem,” Saad remarks, sharing how he and his partner, Jason, have become close to Lavelle, often helping with chores around the home or enjoying conversations over brunch.

Along with Saad’s partner, Jason, the three have become pillars of support for each other, offering guidance, encouragement, and a listening ear when needed most. In February 2023, Lavelle was deeply saddened by the passing of her classmate and dear friend, Charlie Raffe ’60, L’62. After one of Saad’s visits to campus for a JDi Residency, he returned to Phoenix with a heartfelt gift for Lavelle—a printed copy of her Class of 1962 composite, featuring photos of the young Lavelle and Raffe. This thoughtful gesture, along with the friendship and camaraderie, was a touching moment for Lavelle. Whether it’s assisting with home projects or simply enjoying each other’s company, their bond continues to strengthen with each passing day.

As they reflect on their journey from strangers to friends, Saad and Lavelle are reminded of the profound impact a chance encounter can have on one’s life. Through their friendship, they exemplify the enduring spirit of the Syracuse University community—a community built on connections, shared experiences, and a commitment to making a difference in the world. Though their paths may have diverged, George Saad L’25 and Sheilah LaValle ’59, L’62 will forever be united by their love for Syracuse Law and the special bond they share.

Professor Gregory Germain on the First Witness of the Trump Hush Money Trial

Professor Gregory Germain spoke with Salon after the first witness, former National Enquirer chairman David Pecker, was called in the Trump hush money trial.

Germain said how Pecker’s role in the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels “relates to the charges against Trump” is “not clear.” He emphasized that the former president’s charges pertain to falsifying business records in connection with Daniels’ payoff. “I don’t see how the ‘catch and kill’ scheme is relevant to the business records charges, except maybe to show that Trump was trying to hide negative information from the public.”

To prove the charges against the former president, the prosecution “must show” that Trump falsified them “to commit fraud on someone” and “hide a separate independent crime,” Germain explained, reiterating he doesn’t see Pecker’s testimony relating to the “elements that the prosecution has to prove.”

Betty and Michael D. Wohl Veterans Legal Clinic Statement on Johnson v. Grants Pass SCOTUS Case

Syracuse University College of Law’s Betty and Michael D. Wohl Veterans Legal Clinic (VLC) is proud to join 43 other organizations, including the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans and the UCLA Veterans Clinic, by submitting an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass.  The Amicus Brief reinforces the duty to ensure that the voices of our nation’s veterans are heard as part of the discourse surrounding this case.  There are over 35,000 unhoused veterans in our country, and fining or arresting unsheltered veterans unfairly complicates their pathway to stable housing.

As a recipient of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)’s new Legal Services for Homeless Veterans grant, the VLC has a new appreciation for the challenges facing homeless veterans.  We are keenly aware of how difficult it can be for veterans to navigate and secure VA benefits— especially for veterans who are homeless or at risk for homelessness. We’ve seen firsthand the inequities rendered in the lives of homeless veterans when complex legal battles and unjust rulings prevent them from receiving critical benefits. 

As a legal services and outreach organization dedicated to serving the veteran community, we have a particular interest in this case because of the importance of ensuring that criminal enforcement actions do not further complicate access to housing, medical care, and benefits.  This case offers the Supreme Court an ideal vehicle to guide the Ninth Circuit and local governments in how to best address homelessness and promote positive outcomes for our nation’s veterans, which has far-reaching implications, even for our work here in Syracuse.

Professor Elizabeth Kubala

Executive Director, Betty and Michael D. Wohl Veterans Legal Clinic

3L Amie Mbye Selected as the Inaugural Recipient of the Hon. Theodore A. McKee L’75 Endowed Law Scholarship

3L Amie Mbye is the inaugural recipient of the Hon. Theodore A. McKee L’75 Endowed Law Scholarship. The Scholarship was established with a generous gift from Syracuse University Trustee and College of Law Board of Advisors Member Richard M. Alexander L’82, a partner at Arnold & Porter, and his wife Emily, to honor the Hon. Theodore A. McKee L’75.

Mbye is the Diversity & Inclusion Chair and Computers Editor for the Syracuse Law Review. She is also a member of the Black Law Student Association and the Travis H.D. Lewin Advocacy Honor Society’s Black Law Student Association Mock Trial Team, which advanced from the regional round of the Constance Baker Motley Mock Trial competition in 2023 and 2024.

She has spent two summers as a Law Clerk in Barclay Damon LLP’s Syracuse office. After graduation in May, she plans on taking the patent bar and returning to Barclay Damon as a first-year associate with the Intellectual Property practice group.

Mbye holds an undergraduate degree in Neuroscience from Agnes Scott College.

The Hon. Theodore A. McKee L’75 Endowed Law Scholarship provides Syracuse Law students with the education and cultural context to enable them to carry forward the legacy of Judge McKee, who has served on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for more than 27 years.

Judge McKee graduated from the College of Law in 1975 magna cum laude and as a member of the Order of the Coif and the Justinian Honorary Law Society. He began his legal career in private practice in Philadelphia, PA, before entering public service as an Assistant US Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He then served as Deputy City Solicitor for Philadelphia, as a lecturer at Rutgers Law School, and as General Counsel for the Philadelphia Parking Authority.

Judge McKee first took the bench in 1984 on the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. After a decade of service, he was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by President William J. Clinton in 1994, receiving his confirmation and commission later that same year. Judge McKee served as the court’s Chief Judge from 2010 to 2016.

If you are interested in supporting the Hon. Theodore A. McKee L’75 Endowed Law Scholarship, please click here.

Professor Cora True-Frost G’01, L’01 Speaks with USA Today & New Mexico Political Report on SCOTUS Hearing on the Abortion Drug Mifepristone

Professor Cora True-Frost G’01, L’0, discussed with USA Today the recent oral arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States case FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The Alliance is seeking to roll back access to mifepristone across the country.

True-Frost noted that by tackling the apparent weaknesses in the doctors’ standing to sue and the broad remedies they demanded, the court was avoiding the knottier question of whether the judiciary should have a say in science-based decisions like the approval of drugs by the FDA.

“For the court to engage the merits of those arguments, they would be substituting their judgment for those of the experts at the FDA,” said True-Frost. “Focusing on the threshold issue of standing is a classic judicial move to conserve court resources and avoid making cases the court would rather not make.”

True-Frost also spoke with the New Mexico Political Report on the case. She discussed the fact that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito referred to the Comstock Act during oral argument, could be a kind of signal to the anti-abortion movement to try to bring a suit regarding that law.

If the nine justices determine that the case does have standing and rule in favor of the Alliance, then the implications could be devastating, True-Frost said and would go far beyond the question of medication abortion.

She said the effect would be “massive in terms of the impact of the regulatory state.”

“The effect of taking this pill out of circulation, off the menu for women who could choose it, affects this relationship between the administrative branch and the judiciary,” True-Frost said.

True-Frost said the implications are larger than just the FDA. She called it a “multi-prong attack against the doctrine called the Chevron deference,” which she defined as a policy of the courts to defer to agency decisions.