President Trump’s Justice Department is standing firm in a Texas courtroom, defending federal rules that keep abortion pills like mifepristone flowing through online and mail-order channels.
Politico reported that three Republican-led states—Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri—are challenging these regulations, claiming they undermine their state laws. The administration’s legal maneuver focuses on dismissing the case on technical grounds, not endorsing the rules themselves.
The Justice Department filed a brief on Monday in a Texas federal court, arguing that the three states lack the legal standing to sue the Food and Drug Administration.
These states assert that FDA rules allowing abortion pills to cross state lines violate their restrictive laws. The Trump administration’s defense hinges on procedural flaws, not a full-throated support for abortion access.
The case, now before U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, stems from a prior challenge by anti-abortion doctors. The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine argued the FDA’s approval of mifepristone 25 years ago ignored health risks. The Supreme Court in 2024 tossed out their claim, ruling that their concerns about treating complications were too speculative.
Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri have taken up the fight, arguing their citizens face health risks from abortion pills. They also claim financial harm, suggesting fewer births due to abortions could shrink future tax revenue.
The Justice Department sharply rebuffed this, noting no legal precedent supports suing over potential birthrate declines. The states challenge a 2016 FDA decision that expanded abortion pill use from seven to ten weeks of pregnancy.
The Justice Department argues this claim is too old, falling outside the statute of limitations. Federal attorneys also criticized the states for filing in the Northern District of Texas, a venue with no clear connection to their grievances.
“Their claims have no connection to the Northern District of Texas,” the Justice Department’s brief stated. The administration suggested the states refile in a proper district. This procedural push reflects a broader strategy to shield executive power from judicial overreach.
During his 2024 campaign, Trump repeatedly vowed not to curb abortion pill access at the federal level. He emphasized leaving abortion policy to the states, aligning with traditional conservative values of local control.
The Justice Department’s courtroom stance mirrors this promise, focusing on legal technicalities rather than policy shifts. Anti-abortion groups, key Trump supporters, are furious with this approach.
They demand federal restrictions on mifepristone, which is used in about two-thirds of U.S. abortions. These groups feel betrayed, vowing to pressure the administration for stricter measures.
The Justice Department’s filing accused the states of “gamesmanship” and leaning on flawed legal arguments. “The mere fact that someone might violate state law does not by itself injure the government,” federal attorneys wrote. This argument aims to undercut the states’ claim of harm from federal preemption.
The administration’s defense of mifepristone rules follows a similar move earlier in 2025 to protect a key Affordable Care Act provision. In both cases, the Justice Department prioritizes preserving federal authority over agency decisions. This tactic could help fend off future lawsuits from progressive states like California.
“The States fail to identify any actual or imminent controversy over whether any of their laws are preempted,” the Justice Department argued. This stance reinforces the administration’s focus on dismissing challenges on procedural grounds. It avoids wading into the divisive abortion debate directly.
The American Civil Liberties Union warned that Trump’s defense of mifepristone may not last. “If, moving forward, the Trump administration stops defending the FDA’s evidence-based decisions on mifepristone or orders the FDA to reconsider its regulations, that would tank the FDA’s credibility,” said ACLU attorney Julia Kaye. She argued such a shift would contradict Trump’s campaign pledge.
The states’ claim of financial injury hinges on a novel theory: abortions reduce future taxpayers. “The States fail to cite any precedent supporting their theory that they can sue over any policy that affects their potential future birthrate,” the Justice Department countered. This dismissal highlights the weakness in the state’s legal position.
For now, Trump’s administration is holding the line on Biden-era abortion pill rules, frustrating some conservative allies. The outcome in Texas could shape how far states can go in challenging federal authority. Working-class Americans, skeptical of elite-driven agendas, may see this as a pragmatic stand for federalism.