Replies to post #502146 on Anavex Life Sciences Corp (AVXL)

[Investor2014]

Boi is however insisting that a Federal courts know better - who knows maybe under the current administration that could become the case.

Since he likes ChatGPT so much, I asked this simple question:

Has a federal court ever ruled on an FDA decision based in draft or final guidance issued by the FDA?

ChatGPT:

I looked — I did not find a clean recent case where a federal court had struck down or materially altered an FDA drug-approval decision because the FDA relied on a guidance document (draft or final).

What I did find are related cases involving FDA rules and guidance where courts have intervened, but not in the precise context you're asking. A few relevant examples:

---

## 🔍 Related Cases / Contexts

1. American Clinical Laboratory Association v. FDA

* A final FDA rule regulating laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) was vacated by a federal court, partly because the court found FDA lacked statutory authority—even though guidance and policy were part of the regulatory landscape.
* This is about FDA rulemaking, not a drug approval, but it underscores that courts can reject final FDA rules when they exceed statute, even if building on guidance.

2. Wages & White Lion Investments, LLC (FDA v. Wages & White Lion)

* Supreme Court decision (2025): FDA's denial of flavored e-cigarette applications was upheld. The Court noted that the FDA’s approach was “sufficiently consistent with its predecisional guidance.”
* The decision does not strike down a drug approval, but it affirms that courts will examine how consistent an agency’s actions are with its own guidance and reasoning.

---

## ⚠ Why your scenario is rare / difficult

* Drug approvals are heavily fact-driven and expert-science driven. Courts generally give deference to FDA’s scientific judgments (Chevron / APA standards), so challenging approvals on the basis of guidance is a steep uphill.
* Guidance is non-binding, so the litigant would have to show the FDA treated guidance as binding law or acted arbitrarily by ignoring it in a way inconsistent with due process.
* By the time litigation is filed, the record is usually closed — so introducing arguments about guidance is messy and often too late.

[boi568]

I have said all along that even guidelines can entertain exceptions, so long as there is a good reason for it -- in your citation, "scientific judgment."