The Supreme Court is preparing to dissolve matters that restrict access to the abortion drug mifepristone, which was encouraged by the Food and Drug Administration.
The Supreme Court appeared ready to dismiss a challenge on Tuesday from opponents of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) relaxed requirements for dispensing an abortion drug, used to terminate nearly two-thirds of abortions in the country. That would be a victory for the Biden administration and abortion rights supporters, by keeping current rules in place and allowing access in most of the country to the medication.
The justices heard about 90 minutes of arguments about the federal government regulations since 2016 that made access to the drug mifepristone easier, including access by mail. A majority on the court — including several conservatives — suggested individual doctors and advocacy groups that sued may lack «standing» or a legal right to sue to block nationwide access to the medication. Ruling on that legal threshold could mean the court would not address the broader legal arguments over the level of judicial oversight for federal agency actions, including FDA authority to regulate the safety of medicines.
«Do we have to also entertain your argument that no one else in the world can have this drug or no one else in America should have this drug in order to protect your clients?» and their conscientious objections on dispensing or treating patients seeking abortions or emergency reproductive care, asked Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Justice Neil Gorsuch raised concerns over judges who had issued a legal maneuver to block continued access to mifepristone. The Supreme Court for now has allowed the FDA regulations to stay in place pending a final ruling.
«We’ve had, one might call it, a rash of universal injunctions,» said Gorsuch. «And this case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an FDA rule or any other federal government action.»
But Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether the FDA should have unfettered discretion.
«So your argument is that it doesn’t matter if FDA flagrantly violated the law or didn’t do what it should have done, endanger the health of women,» Alito asked the U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, defending the agency. «It’s just too bad, and nobody can sue in court?»
Dozens of activists on both sides rallied in front of the court, in what has become a contentious election-year political, social, cultural and health-related debate.
The issues presented come nearly two years after the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide constitutional right to abortion, giving states individual discretion to regulate the procedure.
At the time, the court’s 5-4 conservative majority declared «unelected members of this Court» would not be intervening in the future to «override the democratic process» of legislators and mandate national abortion policy.
