Health & Public Health
US court orders reconsideration of abortion pill restrictions
A federal court in Virginia ruled that restrictions imposed by the US drug regulator on the abortion pill mifepristone are unlawful and ordered President Donald Trump's administration to reconsider them.
The case was brought in May 2023 by the nonprofit Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of abortion providers in Virginia, Kansas and Montana. It challenged rules known as Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, which abortion-rights advocates have long described as too burdensome.
The challenged rules include a requirement that prescribers register with the manufacturer. Advocates say that creates a national database that could pose a safety risk for doctors. Other rules require pharmacies to be specially certified and keep detailed records, and require patients to review counseling that critics called inaccurate.
In a ruling entered on Thursday and widely publicized on Friday, Judge Robert S. Ballou wrote that the new restrictions were “arbitrary and capricious” because the Food and Drug Administration had repeatedly found over the past 25 years that mifepristone is safe and effective. He ordered the administration to reconsider the rules. He did not void the rules, and did not find that the FDA acted illegally in principle by trying to impose safety restrictions.
Nancy Northup, chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the ruling was “a win for science.”
The case is separate from another case before the Fifth Circuit, where the Republican-led state of Louisiana is asking the FDA to restore a ban on patients receiving mifepristone by mail or through pharmacies after a virtual visit with a provider. In May, the US Supreme Court temporarily kept mail access to mifepristone in place by extending its stay of a Fifth Circuit order that had sided with Louisiana and would have halted such delivery. That case is now back at the federal appeals court for full briefings and could eventually return to the Supreme Court.
Mifepristone is part of a two-pill medication abortion regimen. It has been approved by the FDA since 2000 and is also routinely used to manage miscarriages. The source reported that it has accounted for 63 percent of all US abortions since 2023.
Anti-abortion activists have questioned the drug's safety. Some have cited a study by a conservative think tank that did not go through formal peer review. Separately, the FDA has ordered its own review of abortion pill regulations.
Update
The restrictions at issue were Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy rules for mifepristone.
One rule requires prescribers to register with the manufacturer, creating what advocates describe as a national database that could endanger doctors.
Another rule requires pharmacies to be specially certified and keep detailed records.
A third rule requires patients to review counseling that critics called inaccurate.
Judge Robert S. Ballou said the restrictions were arbitrary and capricious because the FDA had long found mifepristone safe and effective.
The judge ordered the Trump administration to reconsider the rules but did not void them and did not find that the FDA acted illegally in principle by seeking safety restrictions.
Nancy Northup of the Center for Reproductive Rights called the ruling a win for science.
A separate Fifth Circuit case involves Louisiana's request that the FDA reimpose limits on mail and pharmacy access after virtual visits.
The US Supreme Court temporarily maintained mail access to mifepristone in May, and the Fifth Circuit case could eventually return to the Supreme Court.
Mifepristone has been approved by the FDA since 2000, is used in a two-pill abortion regimen, and is also used to manage miscarriages.
The source says mifepristone has accounted for 63 percent of all US abortions since 2023.
Anti-abortion activists have questioned the drug's safety, including by citing a non-peer-reviewed study from a conservative think tank.
The FDA has separately ordered its own review of abortion pill regulations.
Source note: AFP news report published on 24 July 2026 at 19:00:23 UTC.
Uncertainty notes
The Virginia court ordered reconsideration of the rules but did not void them, so the immediate practical effect on the restrictions is limited in the source material.
The separate Fifth Circuit case remains pending.
Source
AFP news report published on .