Following the Supreme Court decision to halt requiring mifepristone, an abortion medicine, to be dispensed in person, got extended in a shadow-docket decision, where the supreme court makes emergency orders without enduring a fully briefed process, till May 14 on Monday.  

This comes after the Supreme Court previously set the extension date to May 11. 

The state of Louisiana sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for allowing the distribution of mifepristone in multiple methods, specifically by mail. This is due to the fact that this option has allowed the continuation of abortions within the state even after its almost total ban of the procedure within the state. 

However following the ruling, a coalition of 22 attorney generals, Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined together to file an amicus brief to halt the appellate court’s recent decision. After review from Justice Samuel Alito, he granted an administrative stay on the appellate decision till Monday, May 11. 

California Attorney General Bonta argued Telehealth allowed women in rural and underserved areas to get the access needed to abortion medicine. By taking away the option to have their medication mailed to them, it is forcing people to either seek out other, more harmful, solutions or end up in economically tough situations that don’t suit their current livelihood. 

The brief submitted by the coalition also argues that the ban on abortion pills being mailed in is in no way for medical reasons, and should not be considered as a solution especially for states that do allow access to abortion care. 

On top of this, because not every state in the U.S. grants abortions, the states that do provide abortion care are getting an influx of in- and out-of-state patients. If a ban on mail in mifepristone were to take place, it would cause more chaos for these medical institutions. 

Pushback against the Fifth circuit decision does not just stem from policymakers but also from the FDA and manufacturers of mifepristone. 

A similar case took place in a lower court in 2024, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The case followed the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and anti-abortion groups pushback against the FDA’s approval of mifepristone of having a mail-in option during COVID-19 since people could not physically access the pill, and also their approval in 2023 for mifepristone to be accessed in pharmacies. The court ended up ruling in favor of the FDA, as the anti-abortion groups could not argue for the restriction of the pill when no medical or physical harm was predicted to be caused by allowing more access to mifepristone. 

This case with Louisiana is now represented by the same law firm, Alliance Defending Freedom, that was used to defend the anti-abortion groups in the 2024 case. Louisiana is now arguing that the FDA’s decision in 2023 to allow telehealth options for the abortion pill was not conducted under scientific terms which they claim to violate the Administrative Procedures Act. 

As the case continues, some of the main concerns are surrounding what the potential decision may mean for nationwide access to abortions and how it affects different state legislature rules surrounding abortion access.