What happened
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a push by anti-abortion groups to restrict access to the abortion medication mifepristone, ruling unanimously that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case.
Who said what
The anti-abortion doctors named as plaintiffs have "sincere legal, moral, ideological and policy objections" to the widely available drug, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the ruling, but their "desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue." Thursday's ruling was the "first major abortion issue to come before the court since its 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade," The Wall Street Journal said. Rejecting the mifepristone challenge on procedural grounds allowed the justices to find "common ground."
Thursday's ruling is "not a 'win' for abortion," Nancy Northup at the Center for Reproductive Rights said in a statement. It simply "maintains the status quo, which is a dire public health crisis in which 14 states have criminalized abortion." This was a "sad day for all who value women's health and unborn children's lives," Katie Daniel at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America said to the BBC. But "the fight to stop dangerous mail-order abortion drugs is not over."
What next?
Kavanaugh's ruling held "potentially useful hints for abortion opponents, laying out a path" for similar challenges in the future, Politico said. Anti-abortion leaders anticipate better luck advancing the merits of their case in "litigation Idaho, Kansas and Missouri are pursuing before the same Trump-appointed judge" whose 2023 ruling "would have banned abortion pills nationwide."
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
-
Why does Trump keep interfering in the NYC mayoral race?Today's Big Question The president has seemingly taken an outsized interest in his hometown elections, but are his efforts to block Zohran Mamdani about political expediency or something deeper?
-
The pros and cons of banning cellphones in classroomsPros and cons The devices could be major distractions
-
Art review: Lorna Simpson: Source NotesFeature Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City, through Nov. 2
-
Judge lets Cook stay at Fed while appealing ousterSpeed Read Trump had attempted to fire Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud
-
Why are federal judges criticizing SCOTUS?Today's Big Question Supreme Court issues Trump case rulings 'with little explanation'
-
Can Trump put his tariffs on stronger legal footing?Today's Big Question Appeals court says 'emergency' tariffs are improper
-
Costco is at the center of an abortion debateTalking Points The decision to no longer stock the abortion pill came following a pressure campaign by conservatives
-
Judge halts GOP defunding of Planned ParenthoodSpeed Read The Trump administration can't withhold Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood, said the ruling
-
'Singling out crypto for special scrutiny would be misguided'Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
'A recipe for higher costs and lower living standards'Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
SCOTUS greenlights mass DOE firingsSpeed Read The Supreme Court will allow the Trump administration to further shrink the Education Department
