The Trump administration asked a federal judge on Monday to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to abruptly restrict access to the abortive pill Mifepristone, taking the same position as the administration biden in a case of close surveillance that has important implications for access to abortion.
The judicial presentation of the Department of Justice is surprising, since President Trump and several officials in his administration have opposed the force. Trump often boasts of that appointed three of the judges of the Supreme Court who voted in 2022 to cancel Roe v. Wade, who had the national law to abortion. And so far in his second term, his administration has tasks to reduce programs that support reproductive health.
The presentation is the first time that the Trump administration intervened in the demand, which seeks to reverse numerous regulatory changes carried out by the Food and Drug Administration during the last decade that greatly expanded access to the mifristone.
The Trump administration application does not mention the merits of the case, which have not yet consulted their legs by the courts. Rather, echoing the argument that the Biden Administration became little before Mr. Trump Tok’s office, the presentation of the court states that the case does not meet the legal standard that will be heard in the Federal District Court in which it was presented.
The case was presented by the three -states conservative attorney attorney: Missouri, Idaho and Kansas, before Judge Matthew J. Kacsmararyk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, a Trump designated one who is firmly opposed.
“The states do not dispute that their claims have no connection with the northern district of Texas,” wrote the lawyers of the Department of Justice in the presentation.
“Regardless of the merits of the states,” states cannot process in this court, “they concluded, and added that the complaint” must be dismissed or transferred due to lack of place. “
Mary Ziegler, a law professor and expert in abortion at the University of California, Davis, said that the Trump administration support for the previous request of the Biden administration to dismiss the case “is surprising, but I think that the best moment when it is about Mifepristone.”
She said that the presentation “avoids saying anything about the substance,” which, suggested, allows the Trump administration to delay its views on Mifepristona and control if it takes measures to restrict the drug.
Trump’s political calculation about abortion has changed since his first term. The Althegh Republicans prevailed in the 2024 elections, as well as the rights of abortion, with voting measures to protect access to abortion winning in several conservative states, including Missouri. The voters in Kansas, one of the other plaintiffs in the case, supported the rights of abortion in 2022, a year in which the Democrats achieved strong profits in Congress in part because a violent reaction against Republicans about abortion. Duration The presidential campaign, Mr. Trump tried to adapt to changing political winds on the subject, sometimes taking positions that frustrated social conservatives.
Mrs. Ziegler said that Monday’s presentation could reflect the desire to be politically cautious in abortion, possible to the mid -period elections of 2026.
“I think he thinks that doing something bold in Mifepristone could be political counterproductive,” he said. “But he has many voters against abortion who not only hope to do something in Mifepristone, but still expect him to do it.”
“There is a bone that deserves a decision in this case,” he added, “so I think the strategy of avoiding merits and kicking the can on the road works well for Trump at this time, but it is not clear while it is sustainable.”
The next step in the case will be that Judge Kacsmaryk decides if he will dismiss or allow it to be processed.
If the demand was successful, it could have a great impact on access to abortion in the United States, where the abortion pill represents almost two thirds of pregnancy endings.
Among the measures of the FDA, the demand seeks to reverse a provision that eliminated the requirement that patients visit prescribers in person to obtain minifepristone. The restitution of the requirement in person would stop the rapid growth practice to prescribe abortion pills through telemedicine and mail issue to patients, including those of states with abortion prohibitions.
“Eliminating dispensing protections in person allowed an abortion drug economy by 50 states,” the general prosecutors wrote. The demand also seeks to reverse the agency of the generic mining agency, now the most commonly used drug form; The ability of practicing nurses and other health suppliers that are not doctoral to prescribe mifepristone; And the ability of retail pharmacies, such as CVS and Walgreens, to dispense the medication.
And requests new restrictions of the FDA in Mifepristone, even to prohibit the medicine for any person under 18.
The lawsuit argues that the FDA actions that expand access to the mifepristone have allowed women to obtain abortive pills despite the prohibitions or restrictions of state abortion. Because of this, he says, health systems in states where abortion is limited or prohibited should treat patients who visit emergency rooms for monitoring or complications of abortion, which costs money to states. He also states that such states have been harmed because the “loss of fetal life and possible births” reduces the “potential population of each state.”
The lawsuit also argues that the FDA violated the Comstock law, an anti-VICA law rarely forced 1873 that prohibits mail articles “destined to the prevention of conception or the acquisition of abortion.” An opinion of 2022 of the Department of Justice said that the law should not be interpreted to criminalize the sending of abortion pills in most cases. The Trump Department of Justice has not terminated or changed that opinion.
The case was initially presented in November 2022 by a consortium of doctors and anti -abortion groups and reached the Supreme Court. But in a unanimous decision in June, the judges showed the case, saying that the plaintiffs had no position to sue because they could not prove that they had been harmed by the FDA decisions about Mifedristone.
A few months later, the three general prosecutors revived the lawsuit and filed a complaint amended in the same court in Texas before Judge Kacsmaryk. In the first iteration of the case, Judge Kacsmaryk issued decisions that stridently criticized the FDA and adopted much of the terminology used by anti -abortion activists.
Abortion pills are prescribed up to 12 weeks in pregnancy in the United States. Women in states with abortion prohibitions have sought more and more abortion pills through telemedicine suppliers.
Currently, 19 states have more strict prohibitions or restrictions than the standard established by Roe v. Wade. In states that support abortion rights, telemedicine abortion suppliers have expanded, and several states have approved shield laws that protect doctors and other health suppliers that recipe and send abortive pills to patients in states or restrictions.
The typical abortion regime of medications involves the mifepristone, which blocks a hormone necessary for the development of pregnancy, followed from 24 to 48 hours later by misoprostol, which causes similar contractions to those who king a spontaneous abortion.
Mifepristone was approved for abortion 25 years ago. Misoprostol, which has a widely Avia pulmonary leg, for several medical conditions, can terminate a pregnancy alone, but demand does not see any restriction on misoprostol. Decades of research have found that pills are safe and strange serious complications.
In January, shortly before Mr. Trump assumed the position, the Department of Justice of Biden presented a motion to dismiss the demand, citing several reasons, including that the Texas Court was the wrong place. The motion also said that the three states had not shown that they had been concrete by the regulations of Mifepristona of the FDA and that the states did not have tasks required for the first time to first see the regulatory reversion through the administrative channels of the FDA.
The presentation of the Trump Administration Court cites the same reasons. “States also argue that FDA actions have provided people with” evading state laws, “said the letter.
“But assuming that was true,” he said, “the mere fact that someone could violate state law” do not hurt a state government in a way that meets the legal standard to sue.
Trump administration officials have previously said little about whether they intend to collect access to Mifepristone. Last month, the FDA Commissioner, Dr. Martin A. Makary, said during an interview at a journalism conference that “had no plans to take measures on Mifepristone.” But he also said that “there is a set of data in -and -on that it is arriving at the FDA in Mifepristone.”
“Then, if the data suggest something or tell us that it is a real signal, then I can be promising that we are not going to act on that data that we have not yet seen,” he added.
In addition to the FDA, the two manufacturers of Mifepristone are accused in the case. Dallo Laboratories, which Mafreprex, the brand version of the medicine, requested that it be added to the case after the original presentation in 2022. Genbiopro, which in which Miffepristone generic is generated became a part that must be added that it will be added to add that it is added that it will be added to add that it is added that it is added that it is added to be added to add. FDA actions regarding the medication.
