President Trump’s administration has taken a surprising stance in a major abortion-related lawsuit, requesting dismissal of a case that could restrict telehealth access to the abortion medication mifepristone.
Key Takeaways
- The Trump administration has asked a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s expanded access to the abortion pill mifepristone, particularly regarding telehealth prescriptions.
- Three Republican-led states—Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas—claim the FDA improperly eased restrictions on mifepristone since 2016, including allowing telehealth prescriptions.
- The Justice Department argues the states lack legal standing and have no proper connection to the Texas district where the case is being heard.
- This position maintains continuity with previous legal approaches despite broader changes in abortion policy under the Trump administration.
- Medication abortions now account for over half of U.S. abortions, with 28 states currently restricting mifepristone access.
Continuity in Legal Strategy Despite Policy Shifts
The Trump administration has formally requested that a federal district court dismiss a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s expanded access to mifepristone, the abortion pill commonly used in medication abortions. This filing represents the administration’s first official position on the mifepristone challenge, which seeks to curtail telehealth prescriptions and mail dispensing of the medication. The Justice Department’s position argues that the states behind the lawsuit lack proper venue and legal standing to challenge FDA decisions made years ago.
Administration lawyers made their position clear in court filings: “At bottom, the states cannot keep alive a lawsuit in which the original plaintiffs were held to lack standing, those plaintiffs have now voluntarily dismissed their claims, and the states’ claims have no connection to this district,” Trump administration lawyers stated.
Republican States Continue Legal Challenge
Despite the administration’s position, attorneys general from Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas persist with their lawsuit, claiming that FDA changes to mifepristone access since 2016 were unlawful. These states argue they have standing due to potential Medicaid costs for treating complications from mifepristone use. The case is being heard by US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who allowed the states to continue the lawsuit after the original plaintiffs dropped their case following an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling.
“Regardless of the merits of the states’ claims, the states cannot proceed in this court,” administration lawyers emphasized.
Broader Context of Abortion Policy
This legal position comes as President Trump has made other significant abortion policy decisions, including dropping a high-profile legal case concerning emergency abortions in Idaho. That case centered on whether emergency-room doctors must provide abortions when necessary to save a woman’s life or prevent serious health consequences, regardless of state abortion bans. The administration’s approach to these cases signals a nuanced position on federal law’s interaction with state abortion restrictions.
“Their move to drop this case against Idaho I think shows what their true priorities are — and it is to push an anti-abortion political agenda rather than support the lives, health and well being of pregnant women and people, not just in Idaho but across the country because this case does have far-reaching impact,” said Brittany Fonteno, president of the National Abortion Federation.
Medication Abortions: Growing Importance
The mifepristone case holds particular significance as medication abortions now account for over half of all abortions performed in the United States. The drug was first approved in 2000, with subsequent FDA changes increasing its availability, including through telehealth services. Currently, 28 states have some restrictions on mifepristone access, highlighting the tension between expanding medical accessibility through technology and imposing limits based on state policies.
The states behind the lawsuit argue they should remain in the Texas court to avoid inefficiency after two years of litigation. However, the administration maintains that the proper venue lies elsewhere, as the states have no meaningful connection to the Texas district where the case is being heard. The outcome of this legal battle will have significant implications for telehealth access to reproductive healthcare across the country, particularly in states that seek to restrict abortion services.
