WASHINGTON (AP) 鈥� on Thursday preserved women鈥檚 access to , rejecting while a lawsuit continues.
The court鈥檚 order allows women seeking abortions to continue obtaining the drug, mifepristone, at pharmacies or through the mail, without an in-person visit to a doctor. Access is likely to remain uninterrupted at least until into next year as the case plays out, including a potential appeal to the high court.
The justices granted emergency requests from makers of mifepristone, who are appealing a federal appeals court ruling that would require women to see a doctor in person and halt delivery of mifepristone through the mail. The federal Food and Drug Administration, which first approved mifepristone for use in abortion in 2000, stopped requiring in-person visits five years ago.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, with Thomas writing that the two companies, Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, are not entitled to the court’s action to spare them 鈥渓ost profits from their criminal enterprise.鈥�
Anti-abortion groups, frustrated with President Donald Trump鈥檚 administration, are pushing the FDA to move faster with a review that they hope will result in restrictions on mifepristone, including blocking its prescribing via telehealth platforms. The Republican administration says the work takes time.
Earlier this week, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary resigned after months of criticism from Trump鈥檚 political allies, including abortion opponents.
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and similarly aligned groups had called on Trump to fire Makary over the slow pace of the mifepristone review.
The court is dealing with its latest controversy four years after its conservative majority and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright.
The case before the court stems from a lawsuit Louisiana filed to roll back the Food and Drug Administration鈥檚 rules on how mifepristone can be prescribed. The state claims that the policy undermines the ban there, and it questions the safety of the drug, which has repeatedly been deemed safe and effective by FDA scientists.
Alito, who wrote the opinion overturning Roe, agreed that the state’s efforts have been thwarted by medical providers and private organizations that mail the pills to women in Louisiana, despite the abortion ban. Danco and GenBioPro 鈥渁re obviously aware of what is going on yet nevertheless supply the drug and reap profits from its felonious use in Louisiana,鈥� he wrote.
Thomas said those who mail the pills are in violation of the , a 19th-century law that has long gone unenforced and bans mailing any 鈥渁rticle, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion.鈥�
Lower courts concluded that Louisiana is likely to prevail, and a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that mail access and telehealth visits should be suspended while the case plays out.
The drug is most often used for abortion in combination with another drug, misoprostol. accounted for nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. in 2023, the last year for which statistics are available.
Telehealth prescribers were prepared to switch to sending abortion patients a regimen that uses only misoprostol.
While Thursday鈥檚 ruling keeps the status quo in place for now, abortion-rights advocates warn that the case isn鈥檛 settled forever.
鈥淲e are relieved that access to mifepristone remains protected for now, but this should never have been on the table in the first place,鈥� Serra Sippel, executive director of The Brigid Alliance, which helps coordinate and fund travel and other logistics to assist women traveling for abortion, said in a statement. 鈥淧atients and providers should not be forced to wait on court rulings to know whether people can access critical health care.鈥�
The decision is 鈥渆xtremely disappointing鈥� but not a defeat, said Gavin Oxley, a spokesperson for the anti-abortion advocacy group Americans United for Life. 鈥淭he Supreme Court still has the opportunity to hear the case in full and bring justice to Louisiana,鈥� he said.
The current dispute is similar to one that reached the court three years ago, when the justices blocked a 5th Circuit ruling in a suit filed by anti-abortion doctors and kept mifepristone widely available, over dissents from Alito and Thomas.
Then, in 2024, the high court unanimously dismissed the doctors鈥� suit, reasoning they did not have the legal right, or standing, to sue.
In the current dispute, mainstream medical groups, the pharmaceutical industry and Democratic members of Congress have weighed in cautioning the court against limiting access to the drug. Pharmaceutical companies said a ruling for abortion opponents would upend the drug approval process.
Debate over the safety of mifepristone has churned for more than 25 years. The FDA has eased a number of restrictions initially placed on the drug, including who can prescribe it, how it is dispensed and what kinds of safety complications must be reported.
Despite those determinations, anti-abortion groups have filed a series of petitions and lawsuits against the agency, generally alleging that it violated federal law by overlooking safety issues with the pill.
has been unusually quiet at the Supreme Court. It declined to file a written brief recommending what the court should do, even though federal regulations are at issue.
The case puts the administration in a difficult place. Trump has relied on the political support of anti-abortion groups but has also seen and poll results that show .
Both sides took the administration鈥檚 silence as an implicit endorsement of the appellate ruling.
___
Associated Press writer Ali Swenson contributed to this report from New York. Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J.
___
Follow the AP鈥檚 coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at .
Copyright © 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.
