The Supreme Court stayed a Fifth Circuit order that had reinstated in-person mifepristone dispensing rules, preserving telehealth access while litigation continues below.
The Supreme Court on May 14 stayed a Fifth Circuit order that had reinstated nationwide in-person dispensing requirements for mifepristone, preserving telehealth access to the abortion pill while litigation continues in the lower courts [1]. The unsigned order drew dissents from Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas [2]. The stay blocks the Fifth Circuit's May 1 ruling from taking effect, restoring the regulatory status quo established by the FDA's 2023 telehealth-prescribing rules [3].
The case, *Louisiana v. FDA*, centers on whether the FDA exceeded its statutory authority when it expanded mifepristone access through telehealth prescribing and mail dispensing in 2023 [3]. The State of Louisiana, joined by other challengers, argued that the agency's action was unlawful. The Fifth Circuit sided with challengers in its May 1 order, immediately reinstating in-person dispensing requirements that the updated rules had eliminated [3]. Manufacturers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, along with the FDA, sought the stay from the Supreme Court [2]. The case is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has signaled that it views the FDA's authority as having been exceeded [1].
The substantive stakes are considerable. Roughly 25% of U.S. abortions now occur via telemedicine, and a return to in-person dispensing requirements would have materially restricted access in states where abortion remains legal [1]. The Supreme Court's stay does not resolve the merits. It preserves the current regulatory framework during the pendency of proceedings below, leaving the Fifth Circuit's core holdings intact and subject to further review [2]. Justice Alito's dissent already flags the case's potential implications under *Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization*, signaling that at least two members of the Court view the underlying question as ripe for plenary resolution [2].
The case now returns to the Fifth Circuit for merits proceedings. Should that court rule against the FDA, a second certiorari petition to the Supreme Court becomes likely, this time on the question of the agency's regulatory authority rather than the emergency stay standard [1]. The dissent from Alito and Thomas suggests that a minority of the Court is prepared to move faster and more decisively on the underlying question than the majority's unsigned order indicates [2].