The Supreme Court on Monday extended a temporary order allowing continued access to the abortion pill Mifepristone through telehealth while the justices consider a major emergency appeal.
Justice Samuel Alito issued the updated order, extending a prior administrative stay until Thursday at 5 p.m. Eastern.
The temporary move keeps in place broader access to the drug while the court weighs the underlying legal fight. But conservatives have a trick up their sleeve.
The order blocks, for now, a May 1 ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that would have required patients to obtain mifepristone through in-person visits rather than telehealth consultations.
As is standard with administrative stays, Alito’s order included no explanation or legal reasoning.
The case marks one of the most significant abortion disputes to reach the Supreme Court since the 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, which ended the federal constitutional right to abortion and returned authority over abortion policy to the states.
Since that ruling, several conservative-led states have restricted or banned in-clinic abortion procedures, increasing reliance on medication abortions, including mifepristone.
Louisiana challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s telehealth policy for mifepristone, arguing that expanded access undermined the state’s abortion restrictions.
A federal district court partially sided with the state, concluding the FDA had not adequately justified its policy based on available safety data.
However, the district court delayed enforcement of its own ruling to allow the FDA time to review the matter.
Earlier this month, a three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit moved more aggressively, immediately suspending the FDA’s telehealth policy.
The judges on that panel were all appointed by Republican presidents.
That ruling created immediate disruption for providers and patients, forcing a sudden shift back to in-person prescribing requirements over the weekend.
Medical providers described the fallout as chaotic, with some saying it created confusion for patients who had expected continued access through telehealth appointments.
Drug manufacturers quickly appealed to the Supreme Court. Danco Laboratories, the maker of branded mifepristone, filed an emergency request warning of widespread disruption.
GenBioPro, which manufactures a generic version of the drug, filed its own appeal, arguing that the lower court ruling risked sharply limiting access for patients nationwide.
The Supreme Court’s temporary extension does not resolve the case but signals the justices need additional time to consider the emergency requests and broader legal questions surrounding access to the medication.
A longer-term ruling could have major national implications for abortion access, particularly in states where medication abortion has become the most accessible option following the fall of Roe.
For now, patients can continue obtaining mifepristone through telehealth under the existing FDA framework while the court deliberates.
It was two weeks ago when, in a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the state of Louisiana, finding it was likely to succeed in its challenge to a 2023 regulation issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
That rule had removed a long-standing requirement that the abortion drug mifepristone be dispensed in person, allowing patients to receive it through the mail following telehealth consultations.
Mifepristone is one of two medications commonly used in abortion care, typically followed by misoprostol, and is approved for use during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy.
According to research cited in court filings, medication abortion now accounts for a majority of abortions in the U.S., with a growing share of prescriptions delivered through telehealth services rather than in-person visits, CNN reported.
The legal challenge stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Louisiana, where officials argued that the FDA failed to adequately consider potential risks when it relaxed dispensing requirements.
Those concerns include rare but serious complications such as hemorrhaging or infection
Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote that the FDA’s “progressive relaxation” of safeguards around the drug “likely lacked a basis in data and scientific literature,” signaling skepticism toward the regulatory changes made in recent years.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
