Justice Department, Under Both Trump and Biden, Seeks Dismissal of Mifepristone Lawsuit

A legal battle over access to mifepristone, a drug widely used in medication abortions, has seen a surprising alignment between two opposing administrations. Both the Trump and Biden Justice Departments have taken the stance that a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s regulations surrounding the drug should be dismissed, albeit for procedural reasons. This legal maneuvering highlights the complexities of abortion politics and the different approaches governments can take in navigating the issue.

The lawsuit in question was initially filed by a group of anti-abortion doctors seeking to reverse the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decisions to ease restrictions on mifepristone prescriptions. The FDA had, over time, relaxed several rules, including extending the permissible gestational age for medication abortion from seven to ten weeks and allowing for mail delivery of the drug without an in-person doctor’s visit.

The Supreme Court initially threw out the lawsuit brought by the anti-abortion doctors, finding that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue. Following this setback, the doctors dropped their challenge. However, attorneys general from Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho intervened to keep the case alive, arguing that they had a legitimate basis to sue due to the financial burden placed on their states’ Medicaid programs. They claimed that complications arising from mifepristone use would necessitate taxpayer-funded medical care.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee known for his conservative stance on abortion-related issues, allowed the states to intervene and is currently hearing the case in the Northern District of Texas. This venue has raised concerns among legal experts, given Kacsmaryk’s past rulings and the lack of a direct connection between the states’ claims and the Northern District of Texas.

The Justice Department’s argument, both under Trump and Biden, centers on the procedural aspects of the case rather than directly addressing the legality of mifepristone or its role in abortion access. In a court brief filed on April 5, the Trump administration’s Justice Department urged the court to dismiss the lawsuit or, at the very least, transfer it to a different district court where venue would be more appropriate. The Justice Department lawyers stated explicitly that the states’ claims had "no connection to the Northern District of Texas" and suggested that they pursue their case in a more suitable venue.

The Biden administration has continued this legal strategy, arguing that Kacsmaryk’s court is not the proper venue for the states’ challenge. The Justice Department has also pushed back on the states’ claims of harm, questioning their assertion that they are being negatively impacted by the FDA’s regulations.

The states’ argument for maintaining the suit in Texas is based on the principle of efficiency, claiming that transferring the case to another court after nearly two years of litigation would be wasteful. However, the Justice Department contends that proper venue is a fundamental legal requirement that should not be sacrificed for the sake of convenience.

Mifepristone, first approved in 2000, has become a key component of abortion care in the United States. Its use has significantly increased in recent years, particularly after the FDA authorized telehealth consultations for prescribing the drug, enabling women in both pro-choice and anti-abortion states to access medication abortion.

The legal battle over mifepristone takes place against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, which eliminated the constitutional right to abortion and allowed individual states to regulate or ban the procedure. This decision has led to a patchwork of abortion laws across the country, with some states enacting near-total bans and others maintaining broad access.

The challenge to mifepristone represents a significant threat to abortion access, particularly in states where abortion remains legal. If the lawsuit is successful, it could severely restrict or even eliminate access to medication abortion, which accounts for a significant percentage of all abortions performed in the United States.

Former President Trump, despite touting his role in appointing the conservative justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, has taken a seemingly neutral stance on mifepristone during his 2024 campaign, stating that he does not plan to ban or restrict access to the drug. This position may be influenced by political considerations, as a more restrictive stance on abortion could alienate moderate voters.

The Justice Department’s stance, consistent across administrations, reflects a focus on legal procedure and potentially a desire to avoid setting a precedent that could weaken the FDA’s authority to regulate drugs. By arguing for dismissal on procedural grounds, the government avoids directly engaging in the contentious debate over abortion rights while still working to ensure that FDA-approved medications remain accessible.

The case highlights the complex interplay between politics and law in the context of abortion. While the underlying issue is deeply divisive, the Justice Department’s actions demonstrate a pragmatic approach, prioritizing adherence to legal norms and procedures. The outcome of the case will have significant implications for abortion access and the future of reproductive rights in the United States. The legal arguments hinge on issues of standing, venue, and the scope of judicial review, requiring careful consideration of legal precedent and the potential impact on the regulatory landscape. The involvement of state attorneys general underscores the increasing politicization of legal challenges to federal regulations, particularly in areas related to healthcare and reproductive rights.