In abortion pill hearing, Supreme Court sounds skeptical of challenge to mifepristone access
It's the first major abortion rights case since Roe was overruled.
A high-stakes hearing played out before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday in a case that could reshape abortion access nationwide.
The justices considered a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of mifepristone, the first pill taken in a two-drug regimen for a medication abortion, which is the most common method of abortion in the country.
It is the first major reproductive rights case before the high court since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022. A decision is expected by the end of June.
Key moments:
Justices ask if anyone has standing to sue FDA over mifepristone
Justice Clarence Thomas asked Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar if there is anyone who would have have a legal right to sue in this case -- which quickly emerged as the first major topic of the court's questioning of the federal government. The FDA has claimed the current plaintiffs do not have standing, with Prelogar suggesting at the hearing that their relationship to people who use mifepristone is too speculative and remote.
Prelogar said there may be an instance where a "competing drug manufacturer might sue and claim that FDA approval of a drug creates a competitive harm or injury or injury in that sense."
Chief Justice John Roberts asked if there is a number of adverse events or a number of patients who go to the emergency room in which the arguments would change. Facing such questions, Prelogar responded by reiterating her view that these possibilities appeared to be too theoretical and detached from specific decision-making and the history of patients who have used mifepristone.
Government defends FDA's expert judgments and warns of 'grave harm' for women
Pelogar, in her opening statement, contended the anti-abortion plaintiffs have no standing and defended the FDA's approval of the drug.
She warned that the relief sought by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine would both "severely disrupt the federal system for developing and approving drugs" and "inflict grave harm on women across the nation."
Arguments are underway
Oral arguments have begun over the abortion pill mifepristone and whether the FDA lawfully relaxed restrictions on the drug to make it easier to access to end a pregnancy.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar will be the first to give an opening statement.
Competing protests outside the court
With arguments set to begin shortly, there are large competing demonstrations outside the building.
Small groups of pro-abortion rights demonstrators were staging sit-ins on sidewalks and roadways.
There is a heavy police presence and Capitol Police are conducting some arrests.
Attorney notes some studies in initial ruling were retracted
Jessica Ellsworth, the attorney for Danco Labs, was asked by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson if she was concerned about the prospect of judges parsing medical and scientific studies without specialized knowledge.
"I think we have significant concerns about that," Ellsworth said, noting the pharmaceutical industry submitted briefs to the court expressing that worry.
She went on to state that U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who initially ruled to suspend mifepristone's approval, relied on studies that "were not in the administrative record" and never would have been.
"They have since been retracted for lack of scientific rigor and misleading presentations of data," she said.
Sage Publishing said it issued the retractions from the journal Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology because of methodology issues and conflicts of interest, ABC News previously reported.