The Supreme Court will challenge access to abortion pills

The Supreme Court announced Wednesday that it would rule on the availability of a widely used abortion pill, the first major abortion case on its docket since it struck down the constitutional right to abortion more than a year ago.

The move sets up a high-stakes battle over the drug, mifepristone, which could sharply limit access to drugs used in more than half of all pregnancy terminations in the United States. It could also impact the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration, which approved the pill more than two decades ago.

The Supreme Court now finds itself in the unusual position of ruling on abortion access, even after the conservative majority declared it would leave that issue to the states. Until a decision is made, the drug’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration remains in effect, delaying the possibility of an abrupt end to the medication.

The judges were to discuss the case during their Friday conference, the private meeting between the nine.

The Biden administration had asked the Supreme Court to hear the case Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-395, after a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision that availability of the drug. The three-judge panel said the pill would remain legal, but with significant restrictions on patient access.

In their appeal, Justice Department attorneys described the appeals court’s ruling as unprecedented in questioning the FDA’s expert judgment. Such a decision, they added, “could seriously disrupt the pharmaceutical industry and prevent the FDA from meeting its regulatory responsibilities. according to his scientific judgment.”

Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal advocacy group that has filed cases for clients who oppose abortion and gay and transgender rights, is representing the challengers. In a brief, the group’s lawyers argued that the court had “no compelling reason” to intervene, and urged legal proceedings before the court to “enable the parties to develop a complete case.”