Summary

Summary

Louisiana v. FDA was filed by the state of Louisiana against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in October 2025. Louisiana seeks to restrict access to the abortion pill mifepristone through the nationwide reinstatement of a medically unnecessary in-person dispensing requirement. Mifepristone has been FDA-approved since 2000 and its safety has been established by decades of use and science.

Reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement would force patients across the country to travel to a health center to be handed the medication. It would end mail distribution of mifepristone, and it would stop pharmacies from filling mifepristone prescriptions for all patients, including those who need it for miscarriage management.

The Trump administration is currently conducting its own politically-motivated “review” of mifepristone. In January 2026, the FDA asked the court to hold off on ruling until the administration’s review is finished, with many suspecting the administration will ultimately reinstate restrictions on mifepristone anyway. The district court granted this request in April 2026, pausing the case to give the FDA time to conduct its “review.”

The district court also denied a request from Louisiana to temporarily reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement while the case is being litigated, which Louisiana appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the requirement, temporarily limiting access to abortion pills and creating chaos and uncertainty. The Supreme Court ultimately stayed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, allowing people to continue to access mifepristone by mail and at pharmacies as the case proceeds.

The case is now back to the Fifth Circuit for full briefing and argument. It will likely make its way back to the Supreme Court after that.

To oppose Louisiana’s motions and support access to mifepristone, hundreds of experts submitted amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs. These briefs underscore the safety and efficacy of the medication abortion drug at issue (mifepristone) and urge the courts to reject Louisiana’s attempts to reinstate medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone nationwide.

Submitted by leading medical and health organizations; members of Congress; current and former government officials; reproductive health, rights and justice organizations; and many other experts, the briefs argue that accepting Louisiana’s arguments would upend the FDA’s evidence-based decision to lift the in-person dispensing requirement; harm patient health; and interfere with provider-patient decision-making. In addition, briefs outline mifepristone’s proven safety and efficacy since it was first approved more than two decades ago.

The amicus briefs filed by this broad range of experts, including the Center for Reproductive Rights, are available below. 

U.S. District Court, 2026

U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division, 2.20.26

• Brief of Over 100 Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice Organizations
• Brief of Former U.S. Department of Justice Officials
• Brief of Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and others dedicated to advancing the civil and human rights of people with disabilities and to ensuring their full and equal participation in society
• Brief of American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, and Other Leading Medical Societies
• Brief of Medical Students for Choice
• Brief of Abortion on Demand, Hey Jane, and the Reproductive Health Initiative for Telehealth Equity & Solutions (RHITES)
• Brief of National Domestic Violence Hotline and Legal Voice
• Brief of Former Commissioners and Acting Commissioners of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
• Brief of States of New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, and the District of Columbia

U.S. Fifth Circuit, April 2026

U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 4.23.26 – 4.24.26

• Brief of Reproductive Health Initiative for Telehealth Equity & Solutions (RHITEs), Hey Jane, and IGH PLLC d/b/a Abortion on Demand
• Brief of Legal Voice
• Brief of Honeybee Health, Inc.
• Brief of Vet Voice Foundation
• Brief of Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund and Eight Other Organizations

U.S. Supreme Court, 2026

U.S. Supreme Court, 5.4.26 – 5.7.26

• Brief of States of New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia, and the Governor of Pennsylvania
• Brief of 259 Members of Congress
• Brief of 175 Professors, Health Organizations, and Healthcare Providers
• Brief of Reproductive Health Initiative for Telehealth Equity & Solutions (RHITES), Hey Jane, and IGH PLLC d/b/a Abortion on Demand
• Brief of Physicians for Reproductive Health
• Brief of Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund et al.
• Brief of Former Commissioners and Acting Commissioners of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration
• Brief of 360 Reproductive Health Researchers
• Brief of American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, et al.
• Brief of Medical Students for Choice
• Brief of National Council of Jewish Women, Religious Community for Reproductive Choice, Catholics for Choice, Hindus for Human Rights, Muslims for Progressive Values, Unitarian Universalist Association, and 46 other faith-based organizations
• Brief of Information Society Project at Yale Law School
• Brief of 163 Reproductive Health, Rights and Justice Organizations
• Brief of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
• Brief of Local Governments and Local Government Leaders
• Brief of FemInEM Foundation and American Academy of Emergency Medicine
• Brief of Food and Drug Law Scholars and Professors
• Brief of Honeybee Health, Inc.
• Brief of Legal Voice, et al.
• Brief of Former Military Officials, Former Civilian National Security Leaders, and Vet Voice Foundation
• Brief of Blood Cancer United and Nine Other Advocacy Groups

U.S. Fifth Circuit, July 2026

U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 7.16.26 – 7.22.26

• Brief of 168 Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice Organizations
  • This brief emphasizes the overwhelming consensus of the scientific and medical community that medication abortion using mifepristone—including when dispensed via telehealth—is safe, effective, and medically necessary. Barring patients from obtaining mifepristone by mail and at pharmacies imposes devastating and medically unjustified burdens on access to mifepristone, particularly for people in rural areas, low-income communities, communities of color, and survivors of intimate partner violence. It also would undermine access to abortion and miscarriage care, worsening patients’ health and autonomy nationwide.
• Brief of 259 Members of Congress
  • This brief was submitted by 47 United States Senators and 212 Members of the United States House of Representatives. It explains that Congress designed a regulatory scheme that ensures Americans’ access to safe and effective medications by requiring expert-led, evidence-based medical decision-making. It also explains how the FDA’s prior actions (which Louisiana challenges) were evidence-based exercises of FDA’s congressionally-mandated responsibility. In this way, granting the relief Louisiana requests would undermine the science-based statutory framework Congress commands and threaten patient access to reproductive health care.
• Brief of 438 State Legislators
  • State legislators from across the U.S. submitted this brief to highlight how reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement takes decisions about reproductive healthcare out of the hands of state legislators and the constituents they were elected to represent, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination in Dobbs that “authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.” This brief also sets forth the stakes of this case for the communities that they represent, including the benefits of telemedicine for their communities and how reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement would impede access to a safe and effective medication.
• Brief of Local Governments and Local Government Leaders
  • This brief highlights the myriad ways in which Louisiana’s requested relief would have devastating national impacts. As amici explain, it would run directly afoul of the Supreme Court’s instruction that the issue of abortion be returned “to the people’s elected representatives,” in response to which many jurisdictions passed initiatives and laws expanding access to abortion care. Amici also underscore how reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone would compromise the delivery of reproductive care nationwide, increase local healthcare costs, and push individuals and families into poverty.
• Brief of 159 Professors, Health Organizations, and Healthcare Providers
  • In this brief, professors, health organizations, and health care providers explain that millions of Americans of all ages and in all communities use telehealth for diverse health needs. This brief details telehealth’s many benefits and discusses how imposing barriers to telehealth would hamper patients’ ability to obtain necessary health care services, reduce access to care, and worsen health outcomes for Americans of every age and across the country.
• Brief of 322 Reproductive Health Researchers
  • In this brief, leading reproductive health researchers summarize the overwhelming scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of mifepristone, including when it is dispensed by mail or at a pharmacy following a telehealth appointment, and debunk Louisiana’s attempts to undermine mifepristone’s safety.
• Brief of American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists et al.
  • The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other leading medical associations submitted this brief to describe the wealth of scientific evidence demonstrating that mifepristone is safe and effective, whether it is dispensed in person, by mail, or at a pharmacy, and how mail and pharmacy access is crucial for people seeking abortion and miscarriage care.
• Brief of Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund and Nine Other Disability Rights Organizations and Academics
  • This brief explains how reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone would strip people with disabilities of accessible options for obtaining a safe and essential medication, in direct conflict with federal law. Doing so would inflict immediate, concrete, and irreparable harm on a population Congress specifically directed federal agencies to protect.
• Brief of Doctors for America
  • This brief presents firsthand accounts from clinicians across practice areas and across the country about the safety of mifepristone. The narratives explain that reimposing the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone would negatively impact both miscarriage management and abortion care, particularly for patients in rural areas that are obstetric care deserts.
• Brief of FemInEM Foundation et al.
  • The firsthand experiences of emergency physicians and published research show that mifepristone is safe, effective, and critical to the practice of emergency medicine. Louisiana’s attempt to use emergency-room visits to undermine mifepristone’s safety are unfounded. Reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement and prohibiting pharmacy access to mifepristone would not only impact people seeking abortions but also interfere with emergency departments’ ability to treat people experiencing miscarriages and other pregnancy complications.
• Brief of Food and Drug Law Scholars and Professors
  • Professors and scholars submitted this brief to address the FDA’s authority to regulate prescription drugs. The brief explains that Congress has directed the FDA to impose REMS on medications only in limited circumstances and only in ways that minimize burdens on access. The FDA had a strong basis for removing the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone and, indeed, was obligated to remove that requirement once the FDA determined it was not necessary.
• Brief of Former Military Officials, Former Civilian National Security Leaders, and Vet Voice Foundation
  • This brief draws on amici’s expertise in military recruitment, readiness, medical care, and personnel to explain how restricting access to mifepristone threatens military readiness and national security.
• Brief of Former U.S. Department of Justice Officials
  • This brief rebuts Louisiana’s claim that removing the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone violates the federal Comstock Act. Congress did not authorize the FDA to limit access to a safe and effective medication based on the FDA’s interpretation of the Comstock Act. And even if the Comstock Act were relevant to FDA’s actions, the agency’s removal of the in-person dispensing requirement does not violate the statute, which prohibits only the distribution by mail of items intended to produce unlawful abortions. Adopting Louisiana’s erroneous arguments would risk a profound destabilization of medical care throughout the country.
• Brief of Former U.S. Food & Drug Administration Commissioners and Acting Commissioners
  • Former commissioners and acting commissioners of the FDA explain that the FDA was extremely cautious in approving mifepristone and in subsequently modifying the mifepristone REMS. Granting the relief Louisiana requests would upend the FDA’s drug approval system and create a roadmap for attacking science-based drug regulatory decisions.
• Brief of Honeybee Health
  • This brief, filed by a mail-order pharmacy run by a board-certified pharmacist with more than twenty years of experience, details the vital role that telehealth and mail-order pharmacies play in ensuring that patients have access to safe and effective healthcare and medication. It highlights (1) the role that telehealth and mail-order pharmacies play in providing patients with access to high-quality and low-cost healthcare and medications—not just abortion; (2) the many studies showing the safety and efficacy of using medication, including mifepristone, dispensed by mail-order pharmacies; and (3) the harms that reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement would impose on patients and mail-order pharmacies.
• Brief of Information Society Project at Yale Law School
  • This brief explains that Louisiana lacks standing to challenge the FDA’s decision to lift the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone in federal court. Louisiana’s arguments are an attempt to weaponize federal courts to impose one state’s policy preferences nationwide. Adopting such arguments would lead to an unprecedented and unworkable expansion of standing.
• Brief of Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law
  • As this brief describes, when reviewing the FDA’s decision to lift the in-person dispensing requirement, courts should look to the agency’s contemporaneous explanation for the decision, not after-the-fact statements made by agency officials. HHS Secretary Kennedy and then-FDA Commissioner Makary’s statements about the FDA’s prior mifepristone REMS decisions are irrelevant.
• Brief of Legal Voice et al.
  • In this brief, advocates for survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) and expert researchers explain that survivors of IPV need access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion care. Reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone would not prevent reproductive coercion but would instead give more power to abusers by limiting survivors’ healthcare options. IPV survivors already have to navigate surveillance and control by abusive partners in accessing abortion, and forcing them to travel to a health center to obtain medication would jeopardize their health and safety.
• Brief of Medical Students for Choice
  • This brief describes how reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone would disrupt evidence-based and patient-centered training for medical students and residents and would risk a further loss of medical talent from the United States. This would also harm patients, including those in reproductive care deserts.
• Brief of NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
  • Black pregnant people face economic, medical, and legal burdens that act as barriers to accessing abortion care, this brief by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund explains. The availability of telehealth significantly eases these burdens. This reliance upon expanded access to mifepristone must be taken into account in the FDA’s ongoing review of the mifepristone REMS.
• Brief of New York et al.
  • Twenty-two states that protect abortion access and the District of Columbia describe how mail and pharmacy dispensing have been critical to expanding reproductive healthcare access for their residents, particularly those in low-income, underserved, and rural communities. Reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement would not only impose barriers to care for the residents of amici states but also impede their ability to meet the demand of out-of-state patients who have been forced to travel for abortion care since Dobbs. The effects of reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement would extend beyond abortion care: because the same facilities that provide abortion care offer other essential healthcare, increased demand for in-person appointments would delay all types of care.
• Brief of Pharmaceutical and Biotech Companies, Executives, and Investors
  • Pharmaceutical and biotech developers and investors filed this brief discussing how they pour billions of dollars and years of effort into developing new drugs, bringing them to market, and improving them. They do so on the promise of a predictable, science-based regulatory process mandated by Congress that has made the United States the global leader in pharmaceutical and biotech innovation. Allowing litigants to restrict the availability of safe and effective medications based on their own ideological objections would threaten the stability of the regulatory process and jeopardize future drug innovation.
• Brief of Physicians for Reproductive Health
  • Presenting narratives from physicians who provide abortion and miscarriage care across the U.S., this brief describes how reinstating the in-person dispensing of mifepristone would exacerbate existing inequities in healthcare access, threaten patients’ health, and limit patients’ autonomy in deciding how to manage their pregnancies and pregnancy losses.
• Brief of Reproductive Health Initiative for Telehealth Equity & Solutions (RHITES), Hey Jane, and IGH PLLC d/b/a Abortion on Demand
  • Telehealth is a critical and increasingly essential component of modern healthcare. For many, it is the only feasible path to timely, safe, and effective abortion care. The patient testimonials in this brief demonstrate how telehealth removes barriers delaying or preventing abortion access, especially for historically marginalized communities.