Americans will still be able to buy an abortion pill after the US Supreme Court threw out a bid by campaign groups to restrict access to it.
The decision was made by the same court that two years ago overturned Roe v Wade – which had previously given womenrights to terminate a pregnancy.
The drug – mifepristone – was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in September 2000 for medical termination up to seven weeks into pregnancy, extended to 10 weeks in 2016.
It was ruled the plaintiffs behind the lawsuit challenging mifepristone lacked the necessary legal standing to pursue the case, which required they show they have been harmed in a way that can be traced to the FDA.
The plaintiffs wanted an end to rules introduced in 2016 and 2021 that permitted medication abortions at up to 10 weeks of pregnancy instead of seven, and for mail delivery of the drug without a woman first seeing a doctor in-person.
The suit initially had sought to reverse FDA approval of mifepristone, but that aspect was thrown out by a lower court.
Mifepristone is taken with another drug called misoprostol to perform medication abortions – now the most common method of terminating pregnancies in the US.
Image: Anti-abortion activists outside the Supreme Court in April 2023. Pic: Reuters
The FDA said that after decades of use by millions of women in the US and around the world, mifepristone has proven “extremely safe” and that studies have demonstrated that “serious adverse events are exceedingly rare”.
Advertisement
The plaintiffs, known as the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, argued the FDA acted contrary to its mandate to ensure medications are safe when it eased the restrictions on mifepristone.
They also accused the administration of violating a federal law governing the actions of regulatory agencies.
US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk broadly sided with them in a 2023 decision that would have effectively pulled the pill off the market.
Analysis: Abortion pill decision offers some respite from complicated patchwork of laws
By Sarah Gough, US producer
Pro-choice campaigners breathed a sigh of relief following the news the Supreme Court will not limit access to medication abortion.
The fight for mifepristone was one of the latest attempts by anti-abortion groups to restrict access to reproductive rights in America following the overturn of Roe v Wade in 2022.
The pill gives much-needed access to abortion care to those who do not yet need to undergo a procedure to terminate their pregnancy. This decision means mifepristone can still be accessed over the counter and through the post with a prescription.
The drug was approved by the FDA more than 20 years ago and has been considered safe ever since. The fact its safety was ever called into question was egregious to many doctors, and women who’d taken the drug, across the country.
It was a unanimous ruling to throw this case out. Unanimous decisions are not something we usually see at the Supreme Court, given the right-wing majority sitting on the bench. However, this was a ruling about how the case was brought, not a moral opinion on whether the abortion pill is necessary or not.
Despite the win for pro-choice groups, there is constant legal wrangling across the US when it comes to abortion care.
The next most consequential upcoming case in front of the Supreme Court concerns whether emergency abortion care can be obtained in spite of abortion bans. It’s being brought out of the state of Idaho, where abortion is entirely banned with limited exceptions, and where some women who go to the emergency room with pregnancy complications are having to be airlifted to nearby states to get the care they need.
Women in restrictive states often have to act via underground methods to obtain an abortion, and doctors live in fear of making hasty, illegal decisions when it comes to reproductive healthcare. What follows is a delay in care, often for the most vulnerable.
The protection of the abortion pill provides some brief respite from a complicated and fraught patchwork of laws.
However, after the FDA appealed, the New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals did not go as far as Kacsmaryk but still ruled against its move to widen access to the pill.
This decision was placed on hold pending the Supreme Court’s review.
The plaintiffs said they had legal standing to sue because their member doctors would be forced to violate their consciences due to “often be called upon to treat abortion-drug complications” in emergency settings.
The Justice Department said these claims relied on an impermissibly speculative chain of events.
Following the decision, Joe Biden said in a statement: “Today’s decision does not change the fact that the fight for reproductive freedom continues.
“It does not change the fact that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade two years ago, and women lost a fundamental freedom.
“It does not change the fact that the right for a woman to get the treatment she needs is imperiled if not impossible in many states.”
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Meanwhile, Mr Trump – speaking at a campaign event – acknowledged the issue had cost Republicans and that it is too important to ignore.
The presidential hopeful said it was his preference for the decision to be made by the people and individual states.
The mifepristone dispute is not the only abortion case the Supreme Court is due to decide during this presidential election year.
It also is expected to rule by the end of June on the legality of Idaho’s strict Republican-backed abortion ban that forbids terminating a pregnancy even if necessary to protect the health of a pregnant woman facing a medical emergency.
Donald Trump has said he plans to hit Canada with a 35% tariff on imported goods, as he warned of a blanket 15 or 20% hike for most other countries.
In a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, the US president wrote: “I must mention that the flow of Fentanyl is hardly the only challenge we have with Canada, which has many Tariff, and Non-Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers.”
Mr Trump’s tariffs were allegedly an effort to get Canada to crack down on fentanyl smuggling, and the US president has expressed frustration with Canada’s trade deficit with the US.
In a statement Mr Carney said: “Throughout the current trade negotiations with the United States, the Canadian government has steadfastly defended our workers and businesses. We will continue to do so as we work towards the revised deadline of August 1.”
He added: “Canada has made vital progress to stop the scourge of fentanyl in North America. We are committed to continuing to work with the United States to save lives and protect communities in both our countries.”
The higher rates would go into effect on 1 August.
Shortly after Mr Trump unveiled his “Liberation Day” tariffs on 2 April, there was a huge sell-off on the financial markets. The US president later announced a 90-day negotiating period, during which a 10% baseline tariff would be charged on most imported goods.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
“We’re just going to say all of the remaining countries are going to pay, whether it’s 20% or 15%. We’ll work that out now,” he said.
He added: “I think the tariffs have been very well-received. The stock market hit a new high today.”
The US and UK signed a trade deal in June, with the US president calling it “a fair deal for both” and saying it will “produce a lot of jobs, a lot of income”.
Sir Keir Starmer said the document “implements” the deal to cut tariffs on cars and aerospace, adding: “So this is a very good day for both of our countries – a real sign of strength.”
It comes as Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, said a new round of talks between Moscow and Washington on bilateral problems could take place before the end of the summer.
A Palestinian activist who was detained for over three months in a US immigration jail after protesting against Israel is suing Donald Trump’s administration for $20m (£15m) in damages.
Lawyers for Mahmoud Khalil have filed a claim against the administration alleging he was falsely imprisoned, maliciously prosecuted and smeared as an antisemite as the government sought to deport him over his role in campus protests.
He described “plain-clothed agents and unmarked cars” taking him “from one place to another, expecting you just to follow orders and shackled all the time”, which he said was “really scary”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:54
Mahmoud Khalil reunites with family after release
Mr Khalil said he was not presented with an arrest warrant and wasn’t told where he was being taken.
He said the detention centre he was taken to was “as far from humane as it could be” and “a place where you have no rights whatsoever”.
“You share a dorm with over 70 men with no privacy, with lights on all the time, with really terrible food. You’re basically being dehumanised at every opportunity. It’s a black hole,” he added.
Mr Khalil said he would also accept an official apology from the Trump administration.
The Trump administration celebrated Mr Khalil’s arrest, promising to deport him and others whose protests against Israel it declared were “pro-terrorist, antisemitic, anti-American activity”.
Mr Khalil said after around 36 hours in captivity he was allowed to speak to his wife, who was pregnant at the time.
“These were very scary hours, I did not know what was happening on the outside. I did not know that my wife was safe,” he said.
Mr Khalil said administration officials had made “absolutely absurd allegations” by saying he as involved in antisemitic activities and supporting Hamas.
“They are weaponising antisemitism, weaponising anti-terrorism in order to stifle speech,” he said. “What I was engaged in is simply opposing a genocide, opposing war crimes, opposing Columbia University’s complicity in the war on Gaza.”
A State Department spokesperson said its actions toward Mr Khalil were fully supported by the law.
Follow The World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
Asked about missing the birth of his son while he was in prison, Mr Khalil said: “I don’t think there’s any word that can describe the agony and the sadness that I went through, to be deprived from such a divine moment, from a moment that my wife and I had always dreamed about.”
Meanwhile, the deportation case against Mr Khalil is continuing to wind its way through the immigration court system.
Donald Trump has praised the Liberian president’s command of English – the West African country’s official language.
The US president reacted with visible surprise to Joseph Boakai’s English-speaking skills during a White House meeting with leaders from the region on Wednesday.
After the Liberian president finished his brief remarks, Mr Trump told him he speaks “such good English” and asked: “Where did you learn to speak so beautifully?”
Mr Trump seemed surprised when Mr Boakai laughed and responded he learned in Liberia.
The US president said: “It’s beautiful English.
“I have people at this table who can’t speak nearly as well.”
Mr Boakai did not tell Mr Trump that English is the official language of Liberia.
The country was founded in 1822 with the aim of relocating freed African slaves and freeborn black citizens from the US.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Later asked by a reporter if he’ll visit the continent, Mr Trump said, “At some point, I would like to go to Africa.”
But he added that he’d “have to see what the schedule looks like”.
Trump’s predecessor, President Joe Biden, promised to go to Africa in 2023, but only fulfilled the commitment by visiting Angola in December 2024, just weeks before he left office.