The federal appeals court questioned Louisiana's challenge to the FDA's decision to permit mifepristone to be prescribed remotely and mailed, focusing on whether the state has standing and can show concrete harm. Louisiana argued the rule conflicts with state authority post-Roe and that the FDA lacked sufficient safety evidence; Danco Laboratories countered that Louisiana had not shown grounds to block the policy and cited the Supreme Court's prior stay. The judges probed the state's data and legal theory and gave no timetable for a ruling.
Appeals Court Presses Louisiana Over Mifepristone Rules, Questions Standing and Evidence
(AP)
A federal appeals court panel on Wednesday sharply questioned Louisiana's legal challenge to federal rules that allow the abortion medication mifepristone to be prescribed remotely and dispensed without an in-person medical visit, including by mail. Judges focused on whether Louisiana has legal standing to bring the case and whether the state has demonstrated concrete, tangible harm from the policy change.
What the Court Heard
The three-judge panel heard oral argument in the latest stage of litigation over the Food and Drug Administration's decision to relax certain restrictions on mifepristone. Louisiana's lawyers argued the federal policy conflicts with the state's authority to regulate abortion following the Supreme Court's 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade and said the FDA lacked adequate evidence to conclude eliminating the in-person dispensing requirement was safe.
Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguinaga told the court that removing the in-person visit requirement increased risks associated with the drug and that the FDA's rule was therefore arbitrary and capricious. The judges repeatedly pressed the state's attorneys on the underlying evidence, probing the data, methodologies, and causal link between the rule change and any concrete harms to the state.
Defense Arguments and Legal Context
Jessica Ellsworth, counsel for mifepristone manufacturer Danco Laboratories, argued that Louisiana had not established entitlement to the relief it seeks and pointed to the Supreme Court's prior intervention—when the high court left the FDA rules in place while litigation proceeded—as evidence that the circumstances do not warrant blocking the federal policy now.
The dispute follows years of regulatory changes and litigation over access to mifepristone. An earlier three-judge appeals panel in May unanimously sided with challengers and issued an injunction that would have reinstated the in-person dispensing requirement; the Supreme Court then granted the FDA's request to stay that injunction roughly two weeks later, leaving the federal policy effective while the cases continue.
Focus of the Current Appeal
Wednesday's arguments therefore centered not only on the merits of the FDA's regulatory decision but on whether Louisiana can satisfy the legal requirements of standing and concrete injury necessary to proceed and ultimately obtain a ruling that the policy is unlawful. The judges signaled close scrutiny of both the state's evidence of harm and the implications of the Supreme Court's earlier stay.
The panel did not announce a timeline for issuing its decision.
Help us improve.
