Supreme Court continues to allow abortion pill to be dispensed through mail

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision allowing the abortion pill to continue to be dispensed through the mail as a Louisiana lawsuit proceeds.

Key Takeaways:

• The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on May 14 stating that the abortion pill can continue to be dispensed through the mail as Louisiana's lawsuit proceeds.

• Following the filing of a lawsuit by the State of Louisiana that sought to reverse the FDA's 2023 changes to abortion pill regulations, the Fifth Circuit paused mail order dispensing.

• The abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories filed an emergency application before the Supreme Court on May 2, requesting a stay be placed on the Fifth Circuit's decision.

• The Supreme Court granted that request, allowing the abortion pill to be shipped through the mail again until at least May 11. It then extended the stay until May 14.

The Details:

On May 4, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary administrative stay (pause) on a ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that had suspended abortion pill dispensing by mail. The Supreme Court's stay allowed mail-order dispensing of the abortion pill to resume until May 11, but the Court then extended its ruling through May 14.

Now, the Supreme Court has indefinitely extended that stay, allowing the abortion pill to be dispensed through the mail. The stay will remain in effect as the State of Louisiana lawsuit seeking the reinstatement of the in-person dispensing requirement proceeds.

"The applications for stay presented to Justice Alto and by him referred to the Court are granted," states the ruling. "The May 1, 2026 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, case No. 26–30203, is stayed pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically."

Justice Thomas dissented, writing, "Applicants are manufacturers and distributors of mifepristone, a drug that is primarily designed to cause abortion. They complain that the Fifth Circuit’s order would reduce profits they derive from selling mifepristone. I would deny their applications because they have not satisfied their burden for securing interim relief. I write separately to note that, as Louisiana argued below, it is a criminal offense to ship mifepristone for use in abortions. The Comstock Act bans using 'the mails' to ship any drug . . . for producing abortion.”

Justice Alito also dissented, writing:

The Court’s unreasoned order granting stays in this case is remarkable. What is at stake is the perpetration of a scheme to undermine our decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215 (2022), which restored the right of each State to decide how to regulate abortions within its borders. Some States responded to Dobbs by making it even easier to obtain an abortion than it was before, and that is their prerogative. Other States, including Louisiana, made abortion illegal except in narrow circumstances. ... But Louisiana’s efforts have been thwarted by certain medical providers, private organizations, and States that abhor laws like Louisiana’s and seek to undermine their enforcement.

These medical providers and private organizations have developed an operation enabling women in Louisiana and other States that restrict abortions to place an online order for a pill called mifepristone that induces abortion. ... After an order is placed, the drug is mailed to women in Louisiana. The manufacturers of the drug, including Danco and GenBioPro, are obviously aware of what is going on yet nevertheless supply the drug and reap profits from its felonious use in Louisiana

One might think that Louisiana could stop or impede this out-of-state interference in its law enforcement by bringing civil actions or criminal charges against the participants in this scheme. But States have effectively blocked these efforts by enacting so-called “shield laws,” which prevent Louisiana from visiting any adverse legal consequences on the perpetrators.

“We are disappointed by this decision that allows the FDA and the abortion industry to continue nullifying Dobbs and its promise to return the issue of abortion to the people. It’s high time the Biden FDA be held accountable for the destruction it has caused with this high-risk drug," said Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Of Counsel Erin Hawley. ADF is representing the State of Louisiana in The State of Louisiana v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "Together with Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill’s office, we look forward to litigating our appeal at the 5th Circuit to protect mothers and their children.”Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel said,

Lila Rose

@LilaGraceRose

·Follow

BREAKING: The Supreme Court has tragically and wrongly granted the abortion pill makers’ emergency appeal, allowing the mail order abortion pill regime to continue nationwide. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented. This decision keeps deadly abortion drugs available by mail and Show more

9:39 PM · May 14, 2026

302

Reply

Copy link

Read 26 replies

Live Action founder and president Lila Rose responded to the ruling in X, saying, "The Supreme Court has tragically and wrongly granted the abortion pill makers’ emergency appeal, allowing the mail order abortion pill regime to continue nationwide."

In a statement, Rose said:

Today’s order is tragic and wrong. The Supreme Court has allowed the mail order abortion pill regime to continue while litigation moves forward, enabling abortion businesses to ship deadly drugs across state lines and into states that have acted to protect preborn children. This is a direct assault on the right of states to defend innocent human life, and on the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of equal protection, which must extend to every human being, born and preborn. Justice Thomas was exactly right: abortion pill companies are ‘not entitled to a stay of an adverse court order based on lost profits from their criminal enterprise,’ and they cannot claim harm from an order that makes it harder for them to commit crimes.’

Justice Alito was also right that ‘equity demands that profits from unlawful activity be surrendered, not protected.’ The Comstock Act already prohibits mailing abortion drugs, and it must be enforced. No abortion business has a right to ship death through the mail, and no state should be forced to watch its pro-life laws nullified by out-of-state abortionists.

If the Trump administration refuses to act, there will be grave consequences for babies and mothers, and political consequences for Republicans in the midterms. Pro-life voters did not elect Republicans to manage the abortion pill regime. They elected them to protect children, defend mothers, and enforce the law. The FDA has the authority and responsibility to do this. The FDA must immediately pull mifepristone from the market and stop allowing pills that kill children and harm women to be mailed across America.

The Backstory:

In 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) changed its safety regulations (REMS) on the abortion drug mifepristone (200mg)/Mifeprex to allow it to be dispensed by mail and in pharmacies. In October 2025, the State of Louisiana filed a lawsuit seeking to reverse that change.

As previously reported by Live Action News, after the lawsuit was filed, the FDA asked the courts to "stay judicial review" and pause the lawsuit as it reviewed the safety regulations of mifepristone. That stay in the lawsuit was approved on April 6, pending the FDA's safety review results. But, Louisiana filed an appeal to that decision on April 17.

The Fifth Circuit then paused mail order dispensing of the abortion pill, ruling that the "FDA's justifications for remotely dispensing mifepristone were based on flawed or nonexistent data," and that the change in safety protocols "resulted in numerous illegal abortions in Louisiana and in Louisiana paying thousands in Medicaid bills for women harmed by mifepristone."

Neither the FDA nor the abortion pill manufacturer appear to be ensuring that prescribers are following the safety rules or FDA limits.

An abortionist in New York has shipped abortion drugs to Louisiana on at least two known occasions.

In one case, the woman was reportedly 20 weeks pregnant — 10 weeks beyond the gestational age approved by the FDA for administering the drug — and threw the baby in the trash after the abortion and before going to the hospital.

The other case involved a teenage girl who was being coerced into taking the abortion pill by her mother. The girl suffered complications from the chemical abortion.

After the Fifth Circuit paused mail-order abortions, abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories filed an emergency application before the Supreme Court on May 2, on behalf of all defendants in the case. It argued that the pause of mail order dispensing "injects immediate confusion and upheaval into highly time-sensitve medical decisions..."

On May 4, the Supreme Court responded to that emergency application, granted Danco's request, and halted the pause on remote dispensing of the abortion pill.

The Bottom Line:

Allowing the abortion pill to be mailed to women without any medical oversight increases the risks of serious complications associated with the abortion pill and also increases the likelihood that women will be coerced or forced into abortions they don't want. In addition, allowing the drugs to continue to be mailed into states that have laws protecting preborn children from such attacks on their lives ignores and disrespects those state laws as well as the federal Comstock Act.