The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to act soon in Louisiana v. FDA, a closely watched case that could reshape access to mifepristone, a medication used in abortion and miscarriage care, and test the courts’ authority to second-guess the Food and Drug Administration’s scientific determinations.

Experts from UCLA School of Law’s Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy are available to speak with journalists about the case’s implications for abortion access, telehealth, FDA authority, drug regulation and the broader post-Dobbs legal landscape.

Members of the Center partnered with outside organizations on an amicus brief filed on behalf of 360 reproductive health researchers. The brief urges the Supreme Court to follow the scientific evidence supporting mifepristone’s safety and effectiveness and reject efforts to reimpose an in-person dispensing requirement.

Why This Case Matters

At issue is whether patients will continue to be able to obtain mifepristone by mail or through a pharmacy, or whether they could be forced to travel, sometimes long distances, to obtain the medication in person at a clinic, medical office or hospital.

In an interview published by UCLA Law, Melissa Goodman, executive director of Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy, explains why the case carries consequences well beyond abortion access.

Medication abortions now account for almost two-thirds of abortions in the United States, and telehealth is used in 27% of abortions nationwide. Goodman said mail and pharmacy access have become especially important for patients in rural areas, people with limited resources, survivors of intimate partner violence, people with disabilities, underserved Black and brown communities, and people in states that severely restrict or ban abortion.

“To our knowledge, no court has ever ordered the FDA to reimpose on a drug a safety rule the agency has thoroughly studied and deemed unnecessary. If the Supreme Court overrides the FDA determination in this way, it will have tremendous impacts for drug manufacturers, pharmacies, and the business of drug making.”

--Melissa Goodman

Experts Available

Melissa Goodman
Executive Director, Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy
Available to discuss the case’s impact on abortion access, FDA authority, drug regulation, telehealth and the broader legal landscape after Dobbs.

Amanda Barrow
Senior Staff Attorney, Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy
Available to discuss the litigation, reproductive rights and the legal implications of restricting access to mifepristone.

Cathren Cohen
Staff Attorney, Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy
Available to discuss reproductive health law, access to care and the potential effects of the ruling on patients and providers.

Diana Kasdan
Legal and Policy Director, Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy
Available to discuss abortion access, reproductive justice and the case’s implications for patients in states with severe abortion restrictions.

To arrange an interview, please contact:

Kelsey Padilla
Communications Coordinator
UCLA Law Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy
padilla@law.ucla.edu

Additional UCLA Law Experts

UCLA School of Law faculty are available to comment on a wide range of international and domestic legal issues shaping the current landscape, including international law and the law of armed conflict, presidential and executive power, foreign relations law, election regulation, constitutional law, and federal-state relations.

Media Contacts: media@law.ucla.edu

Carl Marziali carl@lindavistapr.com 

Geoffrey Baum geoff@lindavistapr.com