The Trump administration is defending federal regulations allowing abortion pills to be available online and by mail, the Justice Department revealed on Monday.
But rather than defending the Food and Drug Administration’s rules for the pills on the merits, the DOJ argued in a filing with a Texas federal court that the three GOP-controlled states suing the agency lack standing and the case should be thrown out.
The Legal Standoff
“Their claims have no connection to the Northern District of Texas,” the DOJ’s brief said of Idaho’s, Kansas’s and Missouri’s challenge, adding that the states are trying to rely on “an incorrect legal argument in unrelated briefing” to argue for new restrictions on the drugs and accusing them of “gamesmanship.”
President Donald Trump said repeatedly on the 2024 campaign trail that he would take no federal action to limit the availability of abortion pills, arguing the issue should be left to states. This stance has angered anti-abortion groups that backed Trump’s reelection, and they have vowed to continue pushing for federal restrictions on mifepristone, a drug used in roughly two-thirds of all abortions.
Legal Strategy Insights
Trump’s new legal filing over the regulation of mifepristone indicates an emerging pattern in his administration’s legal strategy, following the DOJ’s move earlier this year to defend a core provision of the Affordable Care Act. The administration’s stances in both cases surprised many by backing policies favored by Democrats, but at their core they are about preserving executive power and preventing courts from second-guessing agency decisions.
The American Civil Liberties Union said Monday that the Justice Department “should not get a gold star” for its position defending mifepristone from the states’ challenge, noting that the Trump administration could still move to restrict access to the drugs in other ways.
Implications and Future Outlook
The case against the FDA was first brought by a group of anti-abortion doctors called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine that argued the agency’s 25-year-old approval of mifepristone — and several policies since that made the drug more easily accessible — should be overturned because FDA didn’t adequately consider the drug’s health risks.
The Supreme Court ruled last year that the doctors lacked standing, saying their argument that they might have to treat women who took the pills and experienced complications was too speculative. Idaho, Kansas and Missouri have since taken over the case, which is back before the Trump-appointed Texas U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk who heard the original challenge.
“The States fail to cite any precedent supporting their theory that they can sue over any policy that affects their potential future birthrate,” the DOJ wrote.
