President Trump’s administration is asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by conservative states to restrict telehealth access to the abortion pill mifepristone, signaling a surprising continuation of Biden-era legal defenses for medication abortion access.
Key Takeaways
- The Trump administration has requested dismissal of a lawsuit from Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas challenging telehealth access to mifepristone, citing improper venue and expired statute of limitations.
- Justice Department attorneys argued the states lack legal standing to pursue the case after the original plaintiffs dropped their claims.
- The legal battle comes as medication abortions account for over half of all U.S. abortions, with 28 states already restricting mifepristone access.
- President Trump recently dropped a separate high-profile emergency abortion case against Idaho, suggesting a potentially complex abortion policy approach.
- The FDA first approved mifepristone in 2000, with subsequent regulatory changes expanding telehealth access and mail delivery of the medication.
Trump Administration Challenges Lawsuit’s Legitimacy
In a significant legal move, the Trump administration has asked a federal district court to dismiss a lawsuit challenging expanded access to the abortion pill mifepristone. The case, filed by Republican attorneys general from Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas, claims that FDA changes since 2016 relaxing restrictions on the abortion medication were unlawful. The lawsuit specifically targets telehealth prescribing and mail delivery options that were expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic and have remained in place, providing greater access to medication abortion in states where it remains legal.
Justice Department lawyers representing the Trump administration argue that the states’ claims should be dismissed on multiple grounds. The administration contends the case has no proper connection to the Texas district where it was filed, the states lack legal standing to pursue these claims, and they’ve missed the six-year statute of limitations to challenge the FDA’s 2016 actions. This approach mirrors legal arguments previously established under the Biden administration, suggesting continuity in the federal government’s defense of medication abortion access despite the change in presidential leadership.
“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’ own claims have no connection to this district,” Trump administration lawyers,
State Claims and Controversial Jurisdiction
The Republican-led states argue they have legal standing to pursue the case because of potential Medicaid costs for treating complications from mifepristone use, though extensive research has established the medication’s safety record. They further insist the case should remain in the Texas court to avoid inefficiency after two years of litigation. US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee with known anti-abortion views, allowed the states to continue the lawsuit after the original plaintiffs dropped their case following a Supreme Court ruling that they lacked standing.
Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho’s attorneys general have been persistent in challenging the FDA’s actions since 2016 that have incrementally eased restrictions on mifepristone. Their lawsuit specifically targets the FDA’s decision to allow telehealth consultations for prescriptions and mail delivery of the medication, which has dramatically increased access to medication abortion in states where it remains legal. These changes have been particularly crucial for rural and low-income patients who face significant barriers to in-person healthcare access.
“Regardless of the merits of the states’ claims, the states cannot proceed in this court,” according to administration lawyers.
Larger Context of Abortion Access Under Trump
This legal maneuver comes as President Trump recently made headlines by dropping a separate high-profile case concerning emergency abortion access in Idaho. That case, initiated under the Biden administration, had argued that emergency room doctors must provide abortions when necessary to save a woman’s life or prevent serious health consequences under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The decision to withdraw from that case raised concerns among reproductive rights advocates about the administration’s broader abortion policy direction.
“Their move to drop this case against Idaho I think really 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.
The Trump administration’s seemingly contradictory approaches—defending access to mifepristone in one case while dropping emergency abortion protections in another—highlight the complex political and legal landscape surrounding reproductive healthcare. Medication abortion has become increasingly crucial in the post-Roe environment, accounting for more than half of all U.S. abortions in 2023. Meanwhile, 28 states have already implemented various restrictions on mifepristone access through state-level legislation and regulations, creating a patchwork of abortion access across the country.
The FDA’s History with Mifepristone
The Food and Drug Administration first approved mifepristone in 2000, originally with strict limitations on its distribution and use. Over the past two decades, especially since 2016, the agency has gradually eased these restrictions based on accumulated evidence of the medication’s safety record. These changes have included extending the period during which the medication can be used from 7 to 10 weeks of pregnancy, allowing non-physician healthcare providers to prescribe it, eliminating in-person dispensing requirements, and permitting telehealth consultations and mail delivery.
This filing marks President Trump’s first official position on the mifepristone challenge, maintaining the legal framework established by his predecessors. The Supreme Court previously rejected another bid to restrict access to mifepristone in a separate case, citing lack of legal standing by those plaintiffs. While the administration’s legal posture in this case preserves current FDA policies on the medication, the growing uncertainty around reproductive healthcare access continues to impact women across the nation as states pursue increasingly divergent abortion regulations.
