Supreme Court unanimously strikes down legal challenge to abortion pill mifepristone

ByDevin Dwyer ABCNews logo
Thursday, June 13, 2024
Supreme Court unanimously strikes down legal challenge to abortion pill mifepristone
The ruling preserves access to the mail-order medication nationwide.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled a group of doctors lacked legal standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration's regulation of the abortion pill mifepristone, preserving access to the medication nationwide.

The unanimous opinion was authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The case put abortion access back in the spotlight for the court after its conservative majority voted to overrule Roe v. Wade in 2022.

"Plaintiffs are pro-life, oppose elective abortion, and have sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to mifepristone being prescribed and used by others," Kavanaugh wrote in the ruling. "Because plaintiffs do not prescribe or use mifepristone, plaintiffs are unregulated parties who seek to challenge FDA's regulation of others."

"Plaintiffs advance several complicated causation theories to connect FDA's actions to the plaintiffs' alleged injuries in fact. None of these theories suffices to establish Article III standing," he concluded.

Mifepristone is the first pill taken in a two-drug regimen for medication abortion, which is the most common method of abortion in the country.

The court's ruling means mifepristone will remain available under preexisting conditions, which include allowing women to receive the medication by mail and without any in person dispensation requirement.

Though President Joe Biden said the decision "does not change the fact that the fight for reproductive freedom continues."

"Women are being turned away from emergency rooms, or forced to go to court to plead for care that their doctor recommended or to travel hundreds of miles for care," Biden said in a statement. "Doctors and nurses are being threatened with jail time, including life in prison, for providing the health care they have been trained to provide. And contraception and IVF are under attack."

The case's lead plaintiff, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, argued on behalf of anti-abortion rights doctors that those regulations were unsound. The Biden administration defended the FDA's process in court as being supported by science and decades of safe use.

But much of the March 25 arguments centered on the question of standing, and the court concluded the pill's challengers "failed to demonstrate that FDA's relaxed regulatory requirements likely would cause them to suffer an injury in fact."

"For that reason, the federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs' concerns about FDA's actions," Kavanaugh wrote. "The plaintiffs may present their concerns and objections to the President and FDA in the regulatory process, or to Congress and the President in the legislative process."

Drug maker Danco, which fought to defend the pill, said the ruling was a huge win for the pharmaceutical industry which had warned against courts overriding the judgment of scientists and experts at FDA.

The court "maintained the stability of the FDA drug approval process, which is based on the agency's expertise and on which patients, healthcare providers and the US pharmaceutical industry rely," a Danco spokeswoman Abigail Long, said in a statement.

Abortion opponents decried the decision as "deeply disappointing."

"It is a sad day for all who value women's health and unborn children's lives, but the fight to stop dangerous mail-order abortion drugs is not over," said Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America policy director Katie Daniel.

ABC News' Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.