Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Abortion Pill Access

The Supreme Court announced on Wednesday that it would decide on the availability of a commonly used abortion pill, the first major case involving abortion on its docket since it overturned the constitutional right to an abortion more than a year ago.

The move sets up a high-stakes fight over the drug, mifepristone, that could sharply curtail access to medication that is used in more than half of all pregnancy terminations in the United States. It could also have implications for the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration, which approved the pill more than two decades ago.

The Supreme Court is now in the unusual position of ruling on abortion access even after its conservative majority declared that it would leave that question to the states. Until it issues a decision, the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the drug remains in place, delaying the potential for an abrupt end to the medication.

The justices had been slated to discuss the case at their Friday conference, the private meeting among the nine.

The Biden administration had asked the Supreme Court to hear the case after a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision that would curb the availability of the drug. The three-judge panel said that the pill would remain legal but with significant restrictions on patients’ access.

In its appeal, lawyers for the Justice Department described the ruling by the appeals court as unprecedented in questioning the expert judgment of the F.D.A. Such a decision, they added, “would threaten to severely disrupt the pharmaceutical industry and prevent F.D.A. from fulfilling its statutory responsibilities according to its scientific judgment.”

Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal advocacy organization that has brought cases for clients opposed to abortion and gay and transgender rights, represents the challengers. In a brief, lawyers for the group argued that the court had “no compelling reason” to weigh in, pushing for legal proceedings to unfold in the trial court to “allow the parties to develop a full record.”