In a federal court dispute over access to the abortion pill mifepristone, abortion opponents are pushing the Trump administration’s Food and Drug Administration to move faster with a review they hope will lead to restrictions—particularly around telehealth prescribing. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge David Joseph issued a mixed ruling in a case brought by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, declining to halt telehealth prescriptions for the drug while the litigation moves forward.
Joseph’s decision, while not granting an immediate stop, highlighted that the judge viewed Louisiana’s arguments as having substantial weight. He said the state had shown “irreparable harm,” a finding that affects how courts weigh requests for temporary relief. He also ordered the FDA to report to him within six months on the status of its review of mifepristone.
The lawsuit stems from Murrill’s broader aim to roll back FDA rules that made the pills more accessible, particularly for people obtaining prescriptions through online providers. In the court challenge, Murrill contends that allowing telehealth and online access takes “the teeth out of the bans” in the 13 states that bar abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with limited exceptions.
After the ruling, Murrill filed a notice on Wednesday indicating she was taking the case to the U.S. 5th Circuit, seeking quicker action by the appeals court. The filing reflects the impatience many abortion opponents say they feel with the administration’s pace, as well as their desire to force the FDA to act before the drug’s availability continues to intersect with state restrictions.
Some activists have focused their pressure on the FDA rather than on Trump personally, even though they point to Trump’s Supreme Court appointees as pivotal in the 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Kristi Hamrick, a spokesperson for Students for Life of America, criticized what she described as “stall tactics,” saying the administration could also block the pills from being mailed by changing its interpretation of a 19th century law and enforcing it.
Other groups have taken a more cautious stance toward the administration’s timeline. Madison LaClare, director of federal government affairs at National Right to Life, said her group trusts the administration to conduct its review. SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser, in a statement, said the Trump-Vance administration has an opportunity “to prioritize women’s safety,” while avoiding harsh language about the review process.
The political stakes also appear to be part of the calculation for some conservatives pushing for restrictions. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, a former Louisiana lawmaker, said people he meets are often surprised that the number of abortions has not dropped since the 2022 Supreme Court ruling. He said Republicans, including in the run-up to November’s midterm elections, do not need what he called a dampening of enthusiasm among their base.
The FDA said it is still working through its review. In a statement Wednesday to The Associated Press, the agency said it is reviewing the safety of mifepristone “including the collection of robust and timely data, evaluation of data integrity, and implementation of the analyses, validation, and peer-review.” After completing that work, the FDA said it will decide whether to change rules about how the drug can be prescribed.
The dispute is set against a backdrop in which access to mifepristone often relies on medication abortion protocols that include misoprostol. The FDA approved mifepristone in 2000 as a way to end early pregnancies, and it originally imposed stricter limits, requiring specialized physicians and an in-person visit. Those limits were removed during the COVID years, after the FDA said monitoring over more than 20 years and reviewing dozens of studies involving thousands of women supported that people could use the pill safely without direct supervision.