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.

Washington – It was provisional rulingThe majority did not mention the reasons for this. But the Supreme Court’s Friday night order to preserve the availability of commonly used abortion pills sent a powerful message from a punishing court.

“Legal reason prevailed,” he said, “proving that, at least for the time being, disrupting the national market for FDA-approved drugs is a bridge too far, even for this court.” David S CohenProfessor of Law at Drexel University.

Ten months ago, five conservative justices struck down Roe v. Wade, revoking a constitutional abortion right that had existed for half a century. They did as soon as the third Trump appointee arrived, tipping the balance on the bench sharply to the right. Trump’s three justices were in the majority.

Cynics might be forgiven for thinking that the decision last June, at Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, was a product of raw power. Public reaction was decidedly negative, as the court’s popularity plummeted and the decision itself proved deeply unpopular and a political windfall for the Democrats.

In his concurrence in Dobbs, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the majority had abandoned “principles of judicial restraint” at the cost of “a serious shake-up in the legal system.” Friday order avoided a second shake.

But Dobbs’ decision offered some promise. The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. has argued at least seven times that rescinding the right to abortion was an exercise in judicial humility.

“The power to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives,” Justice Alito wrote, in formula that, with only small variations, was sprinkled throughout the opinion like a refrain.

Friday’s Order has, for the time being at least, confirmed that promise. The court blocked a sweeping ruling from Matthew Ja Texas federal judge appointed by President Donald J. Trump is better known for his anti-abortion goodwill than his legal acumen.

His ruling, based on judicial second guessing from several scientific studies supporting FDA approval and regulation of birth control pills, could upend the 23-year status quo.

Nor have the justices accepted, for now, a less assertive alternative than a split three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The majority, made up of two Trump appointees, would have sharply reduced but not eliminated birth control pill availability.

Since the court heard the case expeditiously, in a so-called shadow list, the judges could object without saying so publicly, making vote-counting an imprecise science. Despite the available evidence, Friday night’s vote appears to have been 7-2.

Certainly, the court’s three liberal members — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Kitangi Brown Jackson — were in the majority. It’s a very good bet that Chief Justice Roberts, who compromised in Dobbs, will be with them.

None of the court’s appointed members of Mr. Trump’s — Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — noted dissent.

That left two judges. One of them, Judge Clarence Thomas, voted in favor of allowing birth control pill restrictions imposed by the Fifth Circuit, but did not cite reasons.

The other was Judge Alito, Dobbs’ majority opinion holder. Despite his vows that the court would outlaw the abortion trade, he issued an opposition that packed many grievances into its nearly three pages.

It was “very ironic and not at all surprising,” he said Greer DonnellyProfessor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh and author with Professor W. Cohen Rachel RiboshiDean of Temple Paisley University School of Law, b “abortion pill” Article to be published in The Stanford Law Review.

“Justice Alito, who has written so enthusiastically about bringing abortion back to states as their elected representatives decide, would have allowed an order making abortion available only in states where abortion remains legal,” Professor Donnelly said.

Soon after, the Biden administration and Danko Laboratories, which makes birth control pills, filed emergency Applications On April 14 she asked the Supreme Court to intervene. Judge Alito, who oversees the Fifth Circuit, temporarily suspended Judge Kaksmarek’s ruling for five days, until Wednesday. When the deadline came, I paused it for the second time, until Friday.

It is not clear how the judges spent the week, as it resulted in only one opinion, the dissenting of Judge Alito. Much of it was devoted to accusing the Biden administration of acting in bad faith.

Judge Alito, for example, said the administration should have appealed a decision confirming the abortion pills were obtained from Judge Thomas O. Rice A federal judge in Washington state appointed by President Barack Obama. Judge Rice’s decision was inconsistent with Judge Kaksmarek’s, in that it prevented the FDA from limiting the availability of mifepristone in most parts of the country.

Leah LittmanThe University of Michigan law professor, said she found Judge Alito’s critique intriguing. If there was questionable conduct, she said, it was in the Texas litigation, where the lead plaintiff, a coalition of anti-abortion groups known as the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, took steps to ensure the case would come before a friendly judge. .

Professor Littman said: “It was remarkable that Alito accused the federal government of bad faith in this matter for choosing not to appeal the initial order in the Washington case, when the plaintiffs in the Texas case were merged in Amarillo so that they could choose Judge Kacsmaryk as the one to hear their application to enforce A nationwide ban on medical abortion.

Judge Alito added that Danco, the manufacturer of the pills, had nothing to fear if the Supreme Court curtailed FDA approval of the drug as the case moved forward because, he said, the Biden administration would have been more likely to ignore the court ruling.

Justice Alito wrote that “the government has not dispelled legitimate suspicions that it will obey even an unfavorable order in these cases, much less that it will choose to take enforcement action to which it has strong objections.”

Professor Littman said the opposition sounded more like a political argument than a legal one. “It generally reads like an old guy who watches too much Fox News and rants about how he got paid for a blue check,” she said.

The case now goes back to the Fifth Circuit, which will hear arguments on May 17. After you rule, the losing side will almost certainly appeal to the Supreme Court, at which point the judges will have another chance to decide whether or not to consider.

It would be a mistake to read Friday’s order as a definitive prediction of where they are headed. But there are reasons to believe that an ambitious court has become wary.