The Trump administration urges a federal judge to dismiss Republican states’ lawsuit that would restrict telehealth access to abortion pills, raising questions about the President’s stance on reproductive healthcare following his other recent decision to drop an emergency abortion case in Idaho.
Key Takeaways
- Trump administration lawyers have asked for dismissal of a lawsuit by Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas challenging FDA’s expanded access to mifepristone via telehealth.
- The Justice Department argues the states lack legal standing, missed the statute of limitations, and filed in an improper venue.
- Medication abortions account for over half of U.S. abortions, with mifepristone access already restricted in 28 states.
- This defense of mifepristone access follows Trump’s decision to drop a separate case about emergency abortion access in Idaho.
Trump Administration Takes Position on Mifepristone Access
The Trump administration has requested a federal district court dismiss a lawsuit from three Republican-led states challenging expanded access to the abortion pill mifepristone. This marks the administration’s first official position on the contentious mifepristone issue, with Justice Department attorneys continuing to defend the FDA’s authority to regulate the medication. Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas attorneys general have pursued the case, arguing that FDA changes since 2016 that expanded telehealth prescribing and mail delivery of the drug were unlawful.
The Justice Department’s filing maintains that the states cannot continue a lawsuit where the original plaintiffs were already found to lack standing by the Supreme Court. Administration lawyers also contend that the case should be dismissed on technical grounds, including improper venue and expiration of the statute of limitations for challenging FDA actions from 2016. The agency first approved mifepristone in 2000, with subsequent modifications increasing its availability.
“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 stated in their filing.
States Continue Legal Challenge Despite Federal Opposition
The three Republican-led states are attempting to convince U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk to allow their case to proceed despite the federal government’s objections. Their lawsuit specifically targets FDA changes that permitted telehealth prescriptions of mifepristone and delivery by mail, which they claim violates federal regulations. The states argue they have standing due to potential Medicaid costs for treating complications from mifepristone use, an argument the Justice Department dismisses as speculative.
Judge Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee known for his conservative rulings on reproductive issues, previously allowed the states to continue the lawsuit after the original plaintiffs withdrew. The Supreme Court had already rejected a previous attempt to restrict mifepristone access in 2023, ruling that the anti-abortion doctors and groups bringing the case lacked legal standing. The current litigation represents an attempt to revive similar restrictions through state challenges.
“Regardless of the merits of the states’ claims, the states cannot proceed in this court,” administration lawyers argued in their filing.
Broader Implications for Reproductive Healthcare Access
The Trump administration’s stance on mifepristone comes shortly after its controversial decision to drop a high-profile legal case concerning emergency abortion access in Idaho. That case involved the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires emergency rooms to stabilize patients in medical emergencies, including pregnant women needing abortions to prevent serious health consequences. The decision to abandon that case raised concerns among abortion rights advocates about the administration’s commitment to protecting medical access.
“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, president of the National Abortion Federation.
Medication abortions using mifepristone now account for over 50% of all abortions in the United States, according to recent statistics. Twenty-eight states have already implemented restrictions on mifepristone access through various state laws and regulations. The outcome of this case could significantly impact telehealth access to abortion medication, particularly in states that have not yet banned or restricted such services. The administration’s legal position, while focused on procedural grounds, effectively maintains existing telehealth options for now.
