Trump Admin Pushes for Dismissal of Lawsuit Concerning Mifepristone

The Trump administration has asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit targeting the abortion drug mifepristone, continuing a legal defense initiated under the Biden administration despite the conservative push to restrict access to the medication.

Key Insights

Trump’s Justice Department argues that Idaho, Missouri, and Kansas lack proper venue and standing to challenge FDA decisions on mifepristone in a Texas federal court.
The lawsuit aims to restrict mifepristone access by challenging FDA decisions from 2016 and 2021 that expanded telehealth prescriptions and mail delivery.
Medication abortions now account for over 60% of US abortions since Roe v. Wade was overturned, highlighting the significance of this legal battle.

Trump Administration Continues Biden’s Legal Defense

The Justice Department filed a motion this week requesting that US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk dismiss a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s approval process and regulatory decisions regarding mifepristone. The legal challenge, brought by Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri, seeks to roll back FDA actions from 2016 and 2021 that expanded access to the abortion medication, including allowing telehealth prescriptions and mail delivery without requiring in-person visits with medical providers.

In its filing, the Trump administration argues that the states have no legitimate connection to the Northern District of Texas where the case is being heard, and that their claims related to the FDA’s 2016 actions fall outside the six-year statute of limitations. This position represents continuity with the Biden administration’s defense of the FDA’s authority in regulating mifepristone.

Trump administration asks judge to toss suit restricting access to abortion medication https://t.co/EBex1Vt1R9 pic.twitter.com/7o9mWCijlc

— The Oakland Press (@TheOaklandPress) May 6, 2025

Legal Arguments Focus on Venue and Standing

Federal attorneys emphasized procedural issues rather than the merits of the states’ claims against mifepristone. “The States are free to pursue their claims in a District where venue is proper,” federal attorneys wrote in their filing. The Trump administration maintains that the lawsuit cannot proceed in Texas, pointing out that the original plaintiffs – anti-abortion doctors and medical associations who initiated the case in 2022 – were found by the Supreme Court to lack standing and have since voluntarily dismissed their claims.

“At bottom, the states cannot keep alive a lawsuit in which the original plaintiffs were held to lack standing, those plaintiffs have now voluntarily dismissed their claims, and the states’ own claims have no connection to this district,” Trump administration lawyers argued in their filing.

The case is being heard by Judge Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee who previously ruled to halt the drug’s approval entirely, a decision that was later overturned by the Supreme Court. The current lawsuit specifically targets FDA actions that extended mifepristone’s use to 10 weeks of pregnancy, allowed nurse practitioners to prescribe it, and permitted telehealth consultations and mail delivery.

Broader Context of Abortion Access

Mifepristone was first approved by the FDA in 2000 and is typically used with another medication, misoprostol, for medication abortions. Medication abortions now account for over 60% of all abortions in the United States. The three states involved in the lawsuit have varying abortion laws: Idaho bans abortion at all stages of pregnancy, Missouri has a strict ban but recently amended its constitution to allow abortions, and Kansas permits abortions up to 22 weeks with some restrictions.

This legal battle occurs as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been asked by President Donald Trump to study mifepristone’s safety. During his campaign, Trump expressed strong views on mifepristone but did not release a specific policy position. The administration’s current approach suggests it is focusing on procedural grounds rather than taking a substantive position on the medication’s availability, at least in this phase of litigation.