&w=3840&q=100)
Trump admin urges judge to dismiss lawsuit restricting abortion pill access
Justice Dept. stuck to Biden admin's legal approach, without directly addressing access to the drug used in the nation's most common abortion method
AP Washington
The Trump administration on Monday asked a judge to toss out a lawsuit from three GOP-led states seeking to cut off telehealth access to abortion medication mifepristone.
Justice Department attorneys stayed the legal course charted by Biden administration, though they didn't directly weigh in on the underlying issue of access to the drug that's part of the nation's most common method of abortion.
Rather, the government argued the states don't have the legal right, or standing, to sue.
The states are free to pursue their claims in a district where venue is proper, but the states' claims before this court must be dismissed or transferred pursuant to the venue statute's mandatory command, federal government attorneys wrote.
The lawsuit from Idaho, Kansas and Missouri argues that Food and Drug Administration should roll back access to mifepristone. They filed their complaint after the Supreme Court preserved access to mifepristone last year. They want the FDA to prohibit telehealth prescriptions for mifepristone, require three in-office visits and restrict the point in a pregnancy when it can be used.
The case is being considered by US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas, a Trump nominee who once ruled in favor of halting approval for the drug.
Kacsmaryk's original ruling came in a lawsuit filed by anti-abortion groups. It was narrowed by an appeals court before being tossed out by the Supreme Court, which found the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to sue.
The three states later moved to revive the case, arguing they did have legal standing because access to the drug undermined their abortion laws.
But the Department of Justice attorneys said the states can't just piggyback on the earlier lawsuit as a way to keep the case in Texas.
Nothing is stopping the states from filing the lawsuit someplace else, attorney Daniel Schwei wrote, but the venue has to have some connection to the claims being made.
Besides, Schwei wrote, the states are challenging actions the FDA took in 2016, when it first loosened restrictions on mifeprostone. That's well past the six-year time limit to sue, he said.
Abortion is banned at all stages of pregnancy in Idaho. Missouri had a strict ban, but clinics recently began offering abortions again after voters approved a new constitutional amendment for reproductive rights. Abortion is generally legal up to 22 weeks in Kansas, where voters rejected an anti-abortion ballot measure in 2022, though the state does have age restrictions.
Trump told Time magazine in December he would not restrict access to abortion medication. On the campaign trail, said abortion is an issue for the states and stressed that he appointed justices to the Supreme Court who were in the majority when striking down the national right to abortion in 2022.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s stance on abortion seems to have shifted at times, drawing criticism from both abortion rights advocates and anti-abortion forces. During his first confirmation hearing in January, he repeatedly said, I have always believed abortion is a tragedy, when pressed about his views.
Mifepristone is usually used in combination with a second drug for medication abortion, which has accounted for more than three-fifths of all abortions in the US since the Supreme Court's ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
Opposition demands details of Supreme Court findings on Justice Varma
Some Opposition parties are urging the government to share with them the findings of the Supreme Court-appointed panel against high court judge Yashwant Varma in the "cash seizure" case as the ruling side is seeking multi-party support for its push for bringing an impeachment motion against the judge. The more damning the findings, the more inclined the Opposition would be to back the proposed impeachment move, said people familiar with the matter, even as leaders of Opposition parties including the Congress were still firming up their formal response. Parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju informally reached out to at least two Congress MPs, and some regional parties, seeking support for the motion. "I can't say what is going on between the government and Opposition on the impeachment issue. But, according to the rules, the Members of Parliament, not the government, can move an impeachment motion against a judge with the required number of signatures for admission. So, for us MPs, to sign the proposed impeachment motion, we would require knowing what exactly the case for impeachment against justice Varma is," said Congress' Rajya Sabha member Vivek Tankha, a senior advocate. "So, we expect the government side to share with the Opposition the findings of the Supreme Court-appointed panel that looked into the complaints against justice Varma." Tankha had earlier written to the Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankar, urging him to take steps to ensure MPs' get access to the panel's findings. Some sections in the Opposition nurse a grudge against the government earlier opposing and blocking the Opposition push for impeachment of the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Allahabad High Court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav. There is yet another section which views the case against justice Varma with a sense of suspicion and as part of a crafty manoeuvre. Yet, many in the Opposition feel that the prospect of the ruling side unveiling, formally or informally, critical findings of corruption by the Supreme Court-appointed panel against justice Varma, and the fact that the CJI had forwarded that findings to the government for considering action against the judge, would guide the Opposition's response. Live Events "Corruption in the judiciary is a matter of concern for all citizens and political parties. It cannot be tolerated, and strong measures must be taken to root it out. At the same time, the independence of the judiciary is crucial and the judiciary must remain free from political influence," said D Raja of the CPI, which has two MPs in both Houses. "As far as the impeachment motion is concerned, the government should consult with Opposition parties. It should not assume that it can proceed unilaterally on such important matters."
The Hindu
22 minutes ago
- The Hindu
HMT land: Govt. orders suspension of IFoS officer Gokul
The State government has suspended Additional Principal Conservator of Forests R. Gokul in connection with a case filed in the Supreme Court seeking permission to denotify 443 acres of HMT forest land. The suspension order states that the IFoS officer without obtaining the approval of the then Minister in-charge or sanction from the State Cabinet, filed an interlocutory application (IA) before the Supreme Court seeking permission for denotification of lands granted to HMT measuring 443 acres 6 guntas at Peenya Jalahalli Plantation. Following this the Forest, Ecology and Environment Department issued preliminary notices to former IAS officer Sandeep Dave, then Additional Chief Secretary in the department, former IFoS officer Vijay Kumar Gogi, then Principal Secretary in the department, IFoS officer Smitha Bijjur, then Principal Secretary in the department, and Mr. Gokul, then Chief Conservator of Forests and Litigation Conducting officer, in the said IA. 'The replies received by the said officers have been examined by the department and referred along with the opinion of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms to examine and initiate necessary action,' stated the order. It further stated that after the issue of preliminary notice by the department, Mr. Gokul wrote to the CBI without prior intimation or obtaining permission of the State government for seeking protection with reference to Belekeri port iron ore theft cases and also to investigate the reasons for issuing a notice and defaming through news articles and to provide him adequate protection. The State government then examined the necessary files and records in the said matter and sought a report on the denotification of lands granted to HMT under Forest Conservation Act, 1980. It also investigated if there are any lapses and any irregularities committed by the officers in the said matter. 'In violation of Rule 17 of A11 India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and the State government is prima facie satisfied that it is necessary to place R. Gokul, IFoS under suspension with immediate effect, pending inquiry,' the order stated. It also directed that the officer during the period of suspension to not leave the headquarters without the written permission of the State government.
Hindustan Times
25 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump signs order to double steel, aluminium import tariffs to 50%
New Delhi: A 50% tariff on steel and aluminium imports into the United States went into effect on Wednesday, doubling the previous rate as President Donald Trump cited national security concerns for the dramatic escalation in trade protections. The new tariff rates, increased from an earlier 25% rate, were announced by Trump in a statement on Tuesday. The president claimed legal authority to impose the tariffs through Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president to address national security risks arising from imports. 'In my judgement, the increased tariffs will more effectively counter foreign countries that continue to offload low-priced, excess steel and aluminium in the United States market and thereby undercut the competitiveness of the United States steel and aluminium industries,' read Trump's statement released by the White House. Trump said the earlier 25% tariff rates, first announced in February and implemented on March 12, had helped America's steel industry but had not enabled companies to maintain the capacity needed to meet national defence needs. 'I have determined that increasing the previously imposed tariffs will provide greater support to these industries and reduce or eliminate the national security threat posed by imports of steel and aluminium articles and their derivative articles,' Trump said. The tariff increase comes amid broader trade disputes at the World Trade Organisation. Several countries, including India, have formally challenged the US measures, characterising them as 'safeguard measures' that violate WTO rules and threaten retaliatory action. In May, India formally notified the WTO that it viewed America's tariffs on steel and aluminium as safeguard measures and indicated it could suspend 'concessions and other obligations' given to the US and that it retains the right to enforce retaliatory measures. On May 22, America rejected India's characterisation of the tariffs as safeguard measures and refused to engage in talks on the matter. The introduction of tariffs has proven controversial within the US. The America Iron and Steel Institute, an industry group, has welcomed the increased tariffs as a necessary measure to protect domestic producers from cheaper foreign competition. However, manufacturers using steel as input for production have publicly raised concerns that more expensive steel will impact competitiveness across other domestic industries. For India specifically, the consequences are direct and substantial. According to the Global Trade Research Institute (GTRI), a New Delhi-based research group, India exported $4.56 billion worth of iron, steel, and aluminium products to the US in FY2025, with key categories including $587.5 million in iron and steel, $3.1 billion in articles of iron or steel, and $860 million in aluminium and related articles. 'These exports are now exposed to sharply higher US tariffs, threatening the profitability of Indian producers and exporters,' the GTRI said in a brief.
