Washington – Supreme Court He said Friday evening That the abortion pill mifepristone will still be widely available for now, delays the possibility of an abrupt end to a drug used in more than half of all abortions in the United States.

The order halted steps that sought to limit the availability of mifepristone while moving forward on appeal: a ruling from a Texas federal judge to suspend the drug from the market altogether and another from an appeals court to impose significant barriers to the pill, including blocking access by mail.

The unsigned one-paragraph order, which came hours before the restrictions went into effect, marked the second time in a year that the Supreme Court had considered a major effort to severely limit access to abortion.

The case could ultimately have profound implications, even for states where abortion is legal, as well as for the FDA’s regulatory power over other drugs.

If the ruling by the judge in Texas that overturned the FDA’s approval of the pill after more than two decades holds, it could set the stage for all kinds of challenges to the agency’s approval of other drugs and enable medical providers anywhere to do so. Opposing government policy that may affect the patient.

The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene after the US Court of Appeals allowed the Fifth Circuit to stand on a number of limitations in the Texas ruling, even as it said it would allow the pills to remain on the market.

In Friday’s order, Judges Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Judge Thomas did not provide reasons, but Judge Alito noted that the Fifth Circuit has already narrowed down the more remote aspects of Texas rule. He added that the FDA and the manufacturer of the branded version of mifepristone, Danco Laboratories, “have not shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm” as the case continues in appeals court.

Judge Alito expressed skepticism about the FDA’s claims that regulatory “chaos” would ensue if the lower court’s ruling went into effect. Referring to a competing case brought by Democratic state attorneys general in Washington state, which is seen as a direct challenge to the case in Texas, he accused the FDA of taking advantage of the court system to implement “the desired policy while evading both necessary cases.” Agency Actions and Judicial Review”.

This is most likely not the final word from the judges. After the Fifth Circuit hears the appeal, the case will likely go back to the Supreme Court.

None of the justices appointed by President Donald J. Trump have publicly objected.

The court’s decision is, at least temporarily, a victory for the Biden administration.

President Biden welcomed the decision, saying that “the administration will continue to advocate for the Food and Drug Administration’s independent expert authority to review, approve, and regulate a broad range of prescription drugs.”

He added that the Texas ruling “would have undermined the FDA’s medical judgment and endangered women’s health.”

A spokesperson for the Food and Drug Administration declined to comment.

The reaction of the plaintiffs — a coalition of anti-abortion groups and many doctors — has been muted.

The fight will continue, said Eric Baptiste, senior counsel at the Coalition for Defense of Freedom, a conservative legal organization representing the coalition.

“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must be held accountable for the damage it has caused to the health of countless women and girls and the rule of law by failing to examine the riskiness of the chemical abortion drug regimen and to remove every meaningful safeguard, even allowing mail-order abortions,” said Mr. Baptist. .

After the Supreme Court struck down a constitutional right to abortion in June, political and legal battles have turned to medical abortion, a two-drug regimen usually used in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

The first drug, mifepristone, inhibits the reproductive hormone progesterone, and the second, misoprostol, taken a day or two later, stimulates contractions and helps the uterus expel its contents.

More than five million women have used mifepristone to terminate their pregnancies in the United States, and dozens of other countries have approved the drug for use.

The case reached the judges after a quick and tangled battle over the legal status of the grain.

In November, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Amarillo Circuit of the Texas federal court system, ensuring that the case would be brought before a single judge: Matthew J.

Justice Kaksmarek, a Trump appointee, is a longtime opponent of abortion who joined the platform after working for the First Liberty Institute, a conservative legal group focused on religious freedom issues.

The coalition that brought the lawsuit, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, argued that the Food and Drug Administration improperly approved the birth control pill in 2000 and that mifepristone is unsafe. The agency has strongly disputed these claims, citing studies showing that serious complications are rare and that less than 1 percent of patients require hospitalization.

This month, Judge Kaksmarek, in an interim ruling, declared the FDA’s approval of the drug invalid and gave both parties a week to seek emergency relief before the decision took effect.

Less than an hour later, a federal judge in Washington state, Thomas O. Rice, appointed by President Barack Obama, issued a conflicting ruling in a separate lawsuit involving mifepristone. Judge Rice blocked the FDA from limiting the availability of birth control pills to the 17 states and the District of Columbia, which were parties to that lawsuit.

Competing rulings mean the matter is almost certain to go to the Supreme Court.

The FDA immediately appealed Judge Kaksmarek’s decision, and a divided panel of three Fifth Circuit judges, in New Orleans, upheld the agency’s approval of the drug, ensuring that mifepristone would remain on the market.

But the commission raised several barriers to access, sided in part with Judge Kacsmarek, while the suit went through the courts. It blocked a series of steps the Food and Drug Administration has taken since 2016 to increase the availability and distribution of the drug, such as allowing it to be mailed and prescribed by non-physician medical providers.

Adam Liptak And Christina Jewett Contribute to the preparation of reports.