District Court Vacates FDA LDT Rule; What’s Next for Regulation of Lab Testing?

April 2, 2025

Reading Time : 2 min

On March 31, 2025, Judge Sean D. Jordan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an opinion and judgment in American Clinical Laboratory Association v. FDA. Judge Jordan’s decision vacates and sets aside the Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) final rule, Medical Devices; Laboratory Developed Tests (the LDT Rule).1 The LDT Rule would have required laboratories offering LDTs to meet medical device requirements. The preamble to the LDT Rule provided a multi-stage phase out of FDA’s enforcement discretion policy, under which the first set of regulatory requirements would have been actively enforced beginning May 6. While many labs are breathing a sigh of relief after the publication of this order, questions remain as to how the agency will proceed and the broader implications for regulation of lab tests and in vitro diagnostics generally.

In his decision, Judge Jordan concluded that the definition of “device” in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act did not, as the plaintiffs argued, extend to LDTs, which he characterized as “laboratory-developed test services.” He found that this definition, as well as those included in 1973 and 1977 device-related rulemakings, indicated that the term “device” applies to “tangible, physical products” and could not be read to extend to the kind of professional services involved in the development and running of LDTs. He also interpreted the concept of an “IVD test system” as an improper expansion of the device definition. The court distinguished software as a medical device, which is regulated by FDA, explaining in a footnote that “while it is possible to conceive of “software in the abstract: the instructions themselves detached from any medium,” “[w]hat retailers sell, and consumers buy,” are “tangible,” “physical cop[ies] of the software” that, whether “delivered by CD-ROM” or “downloaded from the Internet,” are ultimately “contained in and continuously performed by” a piece of physical hardware such as a computer.” See American Clinical Laboratory Assoc. v. FDA. (quoting Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 446–48, 449–51, 127 S.Ct. 1746, 167 L.Ed.2d 737 (2007)).

The court also pointed to Congress’ passage of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA), as well as its decision not to enact the VALID Act or the VITAL Act (both of which were intended to clarify FDA’s role in regulating LDTs), as further evidence that FDA lacks authority over LDTs. In addition, the court noted that the projected economic impact of the LDT Rule on laboratories was such that congressional action would be required to implement such a change.

The government has 60 days to appeal the decision, although whether it will do so is unclear. In the meantime, FDA will have to contend with a variety of key questions emanating from the decision, such as how to define the line between the type of “service” that the court held is not a device, whether and to what extent the agency can re-focus its regulatory and compliance resources on tangible device components of “test systems” (including software) used by labs, and the implications for those LDTs for which labs were actively seeking clearance or approval as a device. More broadly, FDA’s consideration of these questions will take place against the backdrop of an actively changing landscape at FDA as the agency undergoes significant workforce changes under new leadership. While members of Congress have offered a number of reform proposals for in vitro diagnostics, there are no immediate prospects for legislative action.

 


1 For more information about the LDT Rule, click here.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Eye on FDA

April 2, 2025

On March 31, 2025, Judge Sean D. Jordan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an opinion and judgment in American Clinical Laboratory Association v. FDA. Judge Jordan’s decision vacates and sets aside the Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) final rule, Medical Devices; Laboratory Developed Tests (the LDT Rule).1 The LDT Rule would have required laboratories offering LDTs to meet medical device requirements. The preamble to the LDT Rule provided a multi-stage phase out of FDA’s enforcement discretion policy, under which the first set of regulatory requirements would have been actively enforced beginning May 6. While many labs are breathing a sigh of relief after the publication of this order, questions remain as to how the agency will proceed and the broader implications for regulation of lab tests and in vitro diagnostics generally.

...

Read More

Eye on FDA

March 24, 2025

In the past week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in collaboration with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced three new initiatives related to food safety and food supply chain transparency. Outlined below, these new initiatives align with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s recent announcements to focus on bolstering food safety, including the recent directive to the FDA to explore the revision of the longstanding Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) rule.

...

Read More

Eye on FDA

March 12, 2025

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has updated its website to provide new information on data integrity concerns relating to medical devices.

...

Read More

Eye on FDA

March 12, 2025

United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kennedy recently directed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to consider rulemaking to revise its longstanding regulations and guidance governing the oversight of food ingredients to eliminate the ability of individuals and companies to self-affirm that their ingredients are Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS). This would mark a massive shift in how new food ingredients are introduced to the market.

...

Read More

Eye on FDA

January 21, 2025

In the final stretch of the Biden administration, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) laid the groundwork for continued engagement with the public on two challenging areas of product development, each of which is of high interest to patients, clinical communities, industry stakeholders and policy-makers in Congress.

...

Read More

Eye on FDA

January 17, 2025

On January 6, 2025, the FDA released final guidance for industry entitled “Communications From Firms to Health Care Providers Regarding Scientific Information on Unapproved Uses of Approved/Cleared Medical Products: Questions and Answers.” The guidance outlines FDA’s enforcement policy concerning certain firm-initiated communications of scientific information on unapproved uses (SIUU) of the firm’s approved or cleared medical products to health care providers involved in prescribing or administering those products to individual patients. It finalizes the October 2023 draft guidance, which itself revised draft guidance from 2014 and 2009. The latest guidance is not for current implementation and is pending the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) approval of the guidance’s information collection provisions.

...

Read More

Eye on FDA

January 16, 2025

On January 15, 2025, FDA announced an order revoking the listings providing for the use of the color additive FD&C Red No. 3 in both foods (including dietary supplements) and ingested drugs. The order is in response to a 2022 petition filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, among other food safety and health advocates, which asserted that the additive induces cancer in male rats and urged the agency to revoke authorization. 

...

Read More

Eye on FDA

January 14, 2025

On January 7, the FDA made available draft guidance on the development of drugs and biological products for weight reduction within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research intended for reduction and long-term maintenance of body weight in patients with obesity or who are overweight. Notably, this draft guidance includes recommendations with respect to the clinical assessment of weight reduction drugs in both adults and pediatric patients, revising and replacing the draft guidance for industry “Developing Products for Weight Management” issued in February 2007. 

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.