The attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana filed a direct suit at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, challenging abortion shield laws in California, Massachusetts, and New York. The shield laws allow providers in those states to prescribe abortion pills via telehealth to patients in states with bans, and the GOP states want to block that practice and punish the out-of-state providers. This is the first time states have sued other states over shield laws, according to law professor Mary Ziegler.
The conflict centers on medication abortion, which accounts for a majority of U.S. abortions and is often delivered by mail under federal telehealth rules. The three GOP states say hundreds of patients in their states receive pills each month, and they argue the shield laws violate their sovereignty and ability to enforce their bans. Louisiana has separately sued the FDA over its mail-order rules, and the Supreme Court in May preserved access to abortion medications while that case proceeds.
Legal experts note the suit's unusual timing, coming six weeks before midterm elections, and that the GOP states might have a stronger case if they had first sought state-court action. Rachel Rebouche, a University of Texas law professor, said direct state-versus-state suits have been a foreseeable strategy since the first shield laws passed. The Supreme Court rarely hears such cases, but if it does, it could short-circuit existing lawsuits and set a precedent for interstate abortion enforcement.