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 FDA should have continued requirement of reporting mifepristone 'harms'
Justice Samuel Alito asked Jessica Ellsworth, the attorney representing Danco Laboratories, if she thinks the FDA should have continued requiring prescribers to report non-fatal complications, known as “adverse events" of mifepristone.
Ellsworth argued the FDA made that decision after 15 years of data that established mifepristone was safe. She also rejected Alito's question asking if the FDA was "infallible".
Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson asked if the defendants had concerns about judges "parsing medical and scientific studies" and Ellsworth said there were concerns.
Attorney for Danco Labs warns of broader consequences for drug approvals
Jessica Ellsworth, who is representing the manufacturer of Mifeprex (the brand name of mifepristone), similarly criticized the plaintiff's claim of injury and their interpretation of the law.
She said the respondent's view is "so inflexible it would upend not only Mifeprex but virtually every drug approval and [risk and mitigation] modification the FDA has made for decades."
Thomas raises Comstock Act again
With Jessica Ellsworth, representing mifepristone manufacturer Danco Labs, now speaking, Justice Clarence Thomas pressed her on the the 19th-century Comstock Act and why that legislation doesn't bar the use-by-mail of the abortion pill.
Ellsworth responded that Comstock has long not been enforced and that she believes this legal challenge is not an opportunity for the justices to "opine" on Comstock's reach.
The federal government previously said in Tuesday's hearing that they do not believe Comstock's requirements are within the FDA's purview as it regulates drugs.
Ellsworth seemed to echo that during her own presentation and questioning, warning that the justices "should think hard about the mischief" that could be created by requiring FDA regulatory approval to be restricted by provisions beyond safety.
-ABC News' Adam Carlson
Participating counsel are all women
Three women are participating in Tuesday's arguments.
Elizabeth Prelogar, the solicitor general at the Department of Justice, is arguing on behalf of the federal government.
Jessica Ellsworth is representing Danco Labs, the manufacturer of mifepristone.
Erin M. Hawley is counsel speaking for the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a group of anti-abortion medical organizations that brought the challenge against the FDA and mifepristone.
Justices wonder why nationwide injunction of mifepristone is needed
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Erin Hawley, the attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom -- the group representing the plaintiffs -- if a nationwide reversal of the FDA's approval of mifepristone is needed and if the court can simply rule that doctors do not need to prescribe the pill if they have conscience objections.
"Do we have to entertain your argument that no one in the world can have this drug in order to protect your client?" the justice asked.
Hawley argued that given the "emergency nature," it is "impracticable" to not have a broader ban or block on access to the pill.
Justice Neil Gorsuch echoed Jackson's question and asked if it is enough for the court to rule on behalf of the plaintiffs not being required to prescribe the pill and why the court has to consider a universal injunction.