On Saturday, Danco Laboratories, the pharmaceutical company that makes the abortion pill mifepristone, filed an emergency request with the US Supreme Court to pause a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and temporarily restore mail-order access to the drug.

Fifth Circuit Reinstates In-Person Requirement

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Louisiana, temporarily reinstated a requirement on Friday that abortion pills must be obtained in person. The decision will, for now, curb access to abortion pills — the most common method of terminating pregnancies in the US — in states where abortion is banned.

The appeals court wrote in its order: “Every abortion facilitated by FDA’s action cancels Louisiana’s ban on medical abortions and undermines its policy that ’every unborn child is human being from the moment of conception and is, therefore, a legal person.'”

Pharmaceutical Company Warns of “Chaos”

Lawyers for Danco warned in their Supreme Court filing: “The resulting chaos for patients, providers, pharmacies, and the drug-regulatory system is a quintessential irreparable harm that underscores the need for emergency relief from this Court.”

Mifepristone is the first drug in a two-pill regimen recommended by the FDA to end a pregnancy. It is widely available in states where abortion is legal.

A History of Regulatory Shifts

In April 2021, the FDA lifted the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing doctors to send pills by mail through telemedicine. In 2023, the FDA permanently lifted that requirement.

However, in 2024 the US Supreme Court unanimously rejected an effort to restrict access to mifepristone — though that ruling left the door open to other attempts to limit the drug’s availability, coming two years after the Court rescinded the nationwide guarantee to abortion rights.

Friday’s appellate order overrides a lower court’s ruling from earlier this month that had paused the case while the Trump administration conducts an FDA review.

Political Divide Continues

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill celebrated the court’s decision, saying the Biden-era rule “facilitated the deaths of thousands of Louisiana babies (and millions in other states).”

“I look forward to continuing to defend women and babies as this case continues,” she added.

Source: BBC News - US Supreme Court asked to restore abortion pill access

On April 29, 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of a New Jersey anti-abortion pregnancy center’s right to resist a subpoena from the state Attorney General demanding donor lists. The decision reignited fierce debate over the boundary between First Amendment freedom of association and state investigative authority.

Case Background

The case originated from an investigation by the New Jersey Attorney General’s office into several anti-abortion pregnancy centers operating in the state. The Attorney General demanded that these centers provide donor information as part of an inquiry into whether they engaged in misleading advertising or violated state consumer protection laws.

However, the anti-abortion centers involved argued that compelled disclosure of donor lists would severely infringe upon their First Amendment-protected freedom of association and could expose donors to harassment and retaliation.

Supreme Court Ruling

According to PBS, the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, ruled that the anti-abortion center has the right to legally challenge the state subpoena and refuse to provide donor information. The ruling held that forced disclosure of donor identities could create a “chilling effect” on First Amendment rights.

The Washington Post noted that the Supreme Court ruled the anti-abortion center can fight the subpoena demanding donors’ names. This decision is consistent with the Court’s recent track record of protecting political associational privacy.

Reuters reported that the US Supreme Court backed anti-abortion pregnancy centers in the New Jersey case.

Constitutional Debate

This case touches upon a longstanding controversy in American constitutional law: to what extent can the government require organizations to disclose their members or donors?

Supporters of disclosure argue that the state has legitimate investigative interests, particularly in areas involving consumer protection and public health. Opponents cite the 1958 precedent of NAACP v. Alabama, emphasizing that forced disclosure can cause irreparable harm to freedom of association.

Political Impact

The ruling elicited sharply contrasting reactions along political lines. Conservative legal organizations hailed it as a major victory for First Amendment rights, arguing it protects donor privacy for organizations of all political persuasions. Liberal groups expressed concern that the ruling could weaken state investigative capacity, potentially opening the door for organizations of all kinds to evade regulatory oversight.

Analysts note that the implications of this ruling will extend far beyond the abortion issue itself, having profound effects on the privacy protections of all nonprofit organizations facing government investigation.

Source: PBS | The Washington Post | Reuters

On April 28, 2026, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Falun Gong lawsuit against Cisco Systems, with multiple justices expressing significant skepticism toward the plaintiffs’ legal claims — signaling the case may struggle to gain the Court’s support.

Case Background

The lawsuit stems from Falun Gong practitioners’ allegations that Cisco assisted the Chinese government in developing and customizing its “Golden Shield” surveillance system in the early 2000s, which was used to identify, track, and persecute Falun Gong members. Plaintiffs argued that Cisco, knowing its technology would be used for human rights abuses, still provided China with specially customized technical support.

The case has undergone lengthy litigation in the federal court system, with the core dispute centering on whether US courts have jurisdiction over an American company’s conduct abroad and whether the Alien Tort Statute applies to such cases.

Focus of Court Debate

During the Supreme Court’s oral arguments, multiple justices questioned the plaintiffs’ jurisdictional claims. Both conservative and liberal justices expressed varying forms of skepticism about the legal foundation of the case.

Some justices raised concerns about whether allowing such lawsuits would open US courts to a flood of cases involving foreign conduct, and whether it could create a chilling effect on American tech companies’ overseas operations.

Tech Industry Watch

The case has drawn close attention from the technology industry. If the Supreme Court rules that Cisco can be held liable, it could establish a precedent for future lawsuits targeting American tech companies’ overseas activities, with far-reaching implications for the entire sector.

Cisco has argued that the products it sold to China were standard commercial networking equipment, not specifically customized for surveillance purposes, and that the company should not be held responsible for how foreign governments use its commercial products.

Legal analysts believe the Court may ultimately dismiss the case on jurisdictional or political question grounds, though it is also possible the Court could rule more narrowly, establishing new legal standards for similar cases.

Source: The New York Times