Supreme Court Rules on FDA Abortion Drug Approval Process

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on Thursday rejecting a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulatory approval process for the abortion drug mifepristone.

This marks a significant Supreme Court ruling in the ongoing debates surrounding abortion rights since the court’s decision in 2022 to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Plaintiffs Lack Standing

In the opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court concluded that the plaintiffs, who sought to restrict access to mifepristone, lacked the legal standing to sue the FDA.

Kavanaugh stated, “Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue. Nor do the plaintiffs’ other standing theories suffice.”

Kavanaugh emphasized that the objections raised by the plaintiffs were insufficient to establish a justiciable case or controversy in federal court.

He pointed out that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the FDA’s relaxed regulatory requirements for mifepristone would cause them direct harm.

“The federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs’ concerns about FDA’s actions,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Legal Pathways for Opposition

The Supreme Court ruling noted that while the plaintiffs have sincere objections to mifepristone and elective abortion, they should present their concerns through appropriate regulatory or legislative channels.

Kavanaugh mentioned, “The plaintiffs may present their concerns and objections to the President and FDA in the regulatory process, or to Congress and the President in the legislative process.”

Historical Context of Mifepristone Regulation

The Supreme Court’s decision follows the FDA’s history of regulating mifepristone, which was approved in 2000 as part of a two-drug regimen to terminate pregnancies.

Over the years, the FDA has eased restrictions on the drug. Notably, in 2016, the FDA allowed mifepristone to be taken later into pregnancy, and during the COVID-19 pandemic, it permitted the drug to be dispensed by mail without an in-person doctor’s visit.

The FDA formalized this decision last year.

Challenges and Reactions

The anti-abortion doctors and medical organizations who challenged the FDA’s rules argued that mifepristone was unsafe and claimed that they faced risks in treating patients with complications from the drug.

However, these claims have been refuted by mainstream medical organizations, including the American Medical Association.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence, bringing up additional issues he had with the anti-abortion groups’ standing claims.

The court’s decision maintains the status quo, allowing continued access to mifepristone without new restrictions.

Supreme Court’s Impact on Abortion Laws

The ruling comes amidst a broader landscape of restrictive abortion laws in several states.

Following the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion, 14 states have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions, and two states have banned it once a fetal heartbeat is detected.

Potential Future Challenges

The court’s decision is a setback for the anti-abortion movement and may influence future legal challenges related to mifepristone.

Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, commented, “Today’s decision doesn’t cut off the possibility of future challenges to mifepristone, including by a handful of red states that were already allowed to intervene in the district court in this case.”

However, he added that the court’s reasoning might make such challenges less likely to succeed.

Ongoing Legal and Political Debates

The Supreme Court’s ruling is one of two significant abortion cases under consideration this month.

Another case involves a strict abortion ban in Idaho, with the Biden administration arguing that federal law requires hospitals receiving Medicare funding to provide stabilizing care, including abortions, when necessary for the health of the pregnant woman.

Also Read: Garland Faces House Contempt Vote for Defying Biden Document Subpoenas