New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

U.S. Supreme Court allows access to mifepristone by mail—for now

The nation’s top court extended a stay on a lower court order banning telemedicine access to mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortions—but the order sets up a longer legal fight

A blister pack of pills shown, with mifepristone label on package.

Soumyabrata Roy/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On Thursday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to allow access by mail to the abortion drug mifepristone for now. The order effectively extends a previous stay issued by the Court on a lower court ruling that would have made it illegal nationwide to mail mifepristone. Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented in Thursday’s ruling.

At the heart of the case is a disagreement over Louisiana state law and virtual abortion access. In 2025 Louisiana filed a suit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in which the state objected to the use of mail-order mifepristone—something the FDA first allowed during the COVID pandemic—on the grounds that the drug carried potential risks and that prescriptions issued by telehealth providers and mailed into the state undermined its abortion ban. Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Louisiana, prompting two companies that make the abortion pill to ask the Supreme Court to step in. If the lower court’s ruing had gone into effect, it would have required those seeking mifepristone to access the medication in person.

Mifepristone was approved by the FDA in 2000. It is typically used to induce abortion, often in combination with another drug called misoprostol. In the U.S., it can be used for pregnancies at up to 10 weeks of gestation. The overwhelming evidence suggests the drug is safe to use, but the Trump administration has opened a review into its safety and efficacy. Some experts say the review’s findings will likely be flawed at best and an exercise in cherry-picking data to support the administration’s views at worse.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Editor’s Note (5/14/26): This is a developing story and may be updated.

Jackie Flynn Mogensen is a breaking news reporter at Scientific American. Before joining SciAm, she was a science reporter at Mother Jones, where she received a National Academies Eric and Wendy Schmidt Award for Excellence in Science Communications in 2024. Mogensen holds a master’s degree in environmental communication and a bachelor’s degree in earth sciences from Stanford University. She is based in New York City.

More by Jackie Flynn Mogensen

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe