ARTICLE
3 April 2025

Federal District Court Vacates FDA's Laboratory Developed Tests Final Rule

HP
Hyman, Phelps, & McNamara

Contributor

Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, the largest FDA-focused law firm in the U.S., specializes in comprehensive legal solutions for companies regulated by the FDA and related agencies like the DEA, CMS, and USDA. The firm assists with regulatory compliance, product lifecycle management, marketing compliance, and due diligence, offering practical, responsive, and client-focused legal strategies. With extensive experience across the food, drug, and medical device sectors, their team supports businesses throughout the supply chain, providing tailored guidance to management, scientists, and compliance officers.

On March 31, 2025, U.S. District Judge Sean D. Jordan ordered that FDA's Laboratory Developed Tests (LDT) Final Rule be vacated and set aside...
United States Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences

On March 31, 2025, U.S. District Judge Sean D. Jordan ordered that FDA's Laboratory Developed Tests (LDT) Final Rule be vacated and set aside, in its entirety. That Rule sought to codify FDA's view that LDTs are medical devices subject to FDA regulation under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and then phase out, over a four-year period, FDA's purported policy of "enforcement discretion" for such tests.

Plaintiffs Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) and Dr. Michael Laposata (both represented by Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C.) had sued FDA, HHS, the FDA Commissioner, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services last year, alleging that the LDT Rule conflicted with the text, history, and structure of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the Clinical Laboratories Improvement Amendments (CLIA). Their case was later consolidated with a similar lawsuit filed by the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) and HealthTrackRX Indiana, Inc.

The Court ruled in favor of all Plaintiffs and against the federal defendants. In the Court's words:

The final rule contemplates expanding FDA's jurisdiction to cover laboratory-developed test services as medical "devices" under the FDCA. That expansion is foreclosed by the text, structure, and history of the FDCA and CLIA. Congress considered the unique regulatory issues raised by clinical laboratories and the tests they develop and perform. It addressed those issues through the comprehensive but distinct statutory regime of CLIA, not through the FDCA. And Congress vested authority over those regulations in CMS, not in FDA.

This decision is a clear win not only for the Plaintiffs, but for the laboratories that the now-vacated Rule threatened to shutter, and most importantly the patients who would have lost access to countless cutting-edge tests.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More