Trump administration delays abortion pill ruling in court battle
Trump administration won a court battle to delay a ruling on access to the abortion pill mifepristone, angering its own anti-abortion allies.
Objective Facts
U.S. District Judge David Joseph, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, gave a mixed ruling Tuesday in a case brought by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill and a woman who says her boyfriend coerced her into taking mifepristone to end a pregnancy. By granting a stay in the case, he says the FDA should be allowed to complete its safety review, and orders the agency to update the court on its progress in six months. While the ruling is sympathetic to Louisiana's arguments about the harms it suffers from mifepristone being available via telemedicine, "ultimately it is FDA, not this Court, that possesses the expertise to evaluate scientific evidence and make public health judgments," writes Joseph, a Trump appointee. The administration's requests in the Louisiana lawsuit and similar ones elsewhere to delay rulings until it finishes a review have sparked anger for some activists. "The stall tactics are beyond frustrating," Kristi Hamrick, a spokesperson for Students for Life of America, said in an interview. In asking for the stay, Trump's FDA also signaled that it would be taking a harder line against mifepristone, possibly reversing some of what Biden's FDA did to maximize access to telehealth abortion. Ziegler says the Trump administration got what it wanted, which was a delay, but it's temporary, and there's now new pressure on the FDA to complete the mifepristone review.
Left-Leaning Perspective
The ACLU press release argues the court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with a review of mifepristone based on discredited anti-abortion propaganda, designed to lay the groundwork for additional restrictions on the safe and effective medication that could push it further out of reach, even in states where abortion is legally protected. The ACLU's legal brief emphasized that at no point did the Department of Justice defend the merits of the FDA's evidence-based decision to allow mifepristone patients to fill prescriptions by mail and at pharmacies. To the contrary, the Trump administration criticized the multi-year scientific analysis backing the FDA's 2023 decision to lift in-person dispensing requirements. The brief notes the Trump administration's announcement of the mifepristone review was based on a debunked, self-published paper from a Project 2025 sponsor that purposefully distorts mifepristone's safety record and has been denounced by more than 260 expert researchers for its severe scientific flaws. Planned Parenthood Federation of America President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson stated "From the courts to the Trump administration to state legislatures across the country, mifepristone and abortion access are very much still under attack." The ACLU notes more than 1 in 4 people in the U.S. who have an abortion use telemedicine, and without this method of care delivery, patients would be forced to travel sometimes hundreds of miles to pick up a pill. For some patients—especially people with low incomes, those living in rural areas, people with disabilities, younger people, and survivors of domestic violence—traveling to a clinic is an added barrier that can prevent them from getting an abortion altogether. The ACLU framing characterizes the delay as allowing the Trump administration to move forward with a review based on discredited anti-abortion propaganda, with the Trump administration's review appearing designed to manufacture an excuse for restricting medication abortion across the country.
Right-Leaning Perspective
Kristi Hamrick, a spokesperson for Students for Life of America, called the administration's delay tactics "beyond frustrating" and argued the administration could block the pills from being mailed by changing its interpretation of a 19th century law. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, an influential conservative voice who is also a former Louisiana lawmaker, applauded Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill's decision to appeal the ruling. He said people he meets are shocked to learn that the number of abortions has not dropped since the 2022 Supreme Court ruling. Perkins stated "We're already seeing an enthusiasm gap between the parties. What the Republicans do not need is a dampening of enthusiasm in their base" and expressed hope the administration will restrict abortion pills rather than risk losing support from conservative voters in midterm elections. Other anti-abortion groups took a more cautious stance. Madison LaClare, director of federal government affairs at National Right to Life, said her group trusts the administration to review mifepristone. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, avoided harsh words for the president, stating "The Trump-Vance administration has an important opportunity right now to prioritize women's safety." LifeNews reported the president has refused to regulate the abortion drug mifepristone and restore previous FDA safeguards requiring in-person prescription, dispensing and consumption. As a result, the drug is being dispensed remotely and shipped across state lines. While FDA Commissioner Marty Makary has pledged a thorough review, that review has yet to be completed nearly a year later. Right-leaning analysis points to polling showing Republican voters support restrictions: Cygnal polling in February found that Republican voters will be less likely to turn out in midterm elections if the GOP continues allowing the abortion drug to go unregulated, with over 70% of Republican voters supporting more stringent safeguards, and nearly one third saying they would be less likely to vote in November if the Trump administration allows mifepristone to remain unregulated.
Deep Dive
The Trump administration's successful request to delay the Louisiana mifepristone case reveals a fundamental tension within Republican politics over abortion strategy. UC Davis legal historian Mary Ziegler describes this as "a kind of civil war between Republicans about how quickly and how far to go," with abortion opponents trying to force the president and Congress into more absolute positions rather than allowing them to navigate ambiguity. The Trump administration signaled it would take a harder line against mifepristone while requesting the delay for its safety review. Trump faced pushback earlier in 2026 from congressional Republicans when he suggested flexibility about abortion restrictions in health care legislation, and abortion was notably absent from his State of the Union address in February. While opposition to abortion is popular with Trump's base, independent voters—key to his election—favor abortion rights. Left-leaning critics view the delay as a tactical maneuver to lay groundwork for restrictions. The ACLU's brief emphasized that the Department of Justice did not defend the merits of the FDA's evidence-based decision on mifepristone access, instead criticizing the multi-year scientific analysis backing the FDA's 2023 rules change. Right-leaning abortion opponents, conversely, see the delay as insufficient action. Kristi Hamrick of Students for Life called the stall tactics "beyond frustrating," signaling impatience with administrative process. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins framed the stakes in political terms: "We're already seeing an enthusiasm gap between the parties. What the Republicans do not need is a dampening of enthusiasm in their base" and expressed hope the administration would restrict the pills to prevent conservative voters from losing engagement. What remains unresolved is whether the Trump administration's FDA review will ultimately restrict mifepristone access or maintain current rules. The judge warned "Should the agency fail to complete its review and make any necessary revisions" to the rules "within a reasonable time frame, the Court's analysis – and the weight accorded to these factors – will inevitably change." Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill has already filed notice she is taking the case to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes of forcing faster action. The six-month deadline for the FDA's progress report will create a critical juncture where both anti-abortion activists and abortion-rights advocates will assess whether the delay genuinely produced policy change or merely bought time without commitment.