HONOLULU (AP) — The U.S. Food and Drug Administration violated the law by imposing restrictions on accessing mifepristone, a medication for abortions and miscarriage management, a federal judge in Hawaii ruled Thursday.
A lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union argues the FDA continues to overly restrict access to a safe medication without scientific justification. ACLU lawyers asked the judge to find that the FDA violated the law but didn't seek an immediate elimination of the restrictions, which currently include special certification for prescribers and pharmacies and requiring patients to review a counseling form.
The FDA's 2023 decision to maintain the restrictions was unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, "by failing to provide a reasoned explanation for its restrictive treatment of the drug,” U.S. District Judge Jill Otake's ruling says.
Otake's ruling instructs the FDA to consider relevant evidence the agency allegedly disregarded. In the meantime, the restrictions remain in place.
The decision comes as the pill used in most U.S. abortions continues to be ensnared in politics that have plagued it for nearly a decade, with many wondering if it will be further restricted under President Donald Trump’s Republican administration. Trump’s top health officials, including Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., face growing pressure from abortion opponents to reevaluate mifepristone, which was approved 25 years ago and has repeatedly been deemed safe and effective by FDA scientists.
The case dates to 2017 and has spanned both Republican and Democratic administrations.
“Today’s decision is a victory for everyone who believes that our access to safe and essential medicines should be dictated by science, not politics,” Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said in a statement. “Despite decades of real-world experience and mountains of evidence proving mifepristone’s safety, the FDA regulates this medication more heavily than 99 percent of prescription drugs.”
When the case first started, a key restriction required patients to pick up the medication in person at a hospital, clinic or medical office. That restriction was eventually removed and the pill can be sent through the mail. The lawsuit continues to focus on the remaining restrictions that the ACLU says disproportionately impact patients who already face difficulties accessing healthcare, such as those who are low-income or live in rural areas.
Justice Department attorneys involved in the case didn’t immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press seeking comment on the ruling. They have argued previously the FDA has already reduced the burden by removing the in-person dispensing requirement.
Hawaii law allows abortion until a fetus would be viable outside the womb. After that, it’s legal if a patient’s life or health is in danger. The state legalized abortion in 1970, when it became the first in the nation to allow the procedure at a woman’s request.
FILE - Mifepristone tablets are seen in a Planned Parenthood clinic, July 18, 2024, in Ames, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall, File)
FILE - A sign for the Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole Federal Building and Courthouse is displayed outside the courthouse on Jan. 22, 2024, in Honolulu. (AP Photo/Jennifer Kelleher, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is not immune from civil claims that he incited a mob of his supporters to attack the Capitol on Jan, 6, 2021, a federal judge has ruled in one of the last unresolved legal cases stemming from the riot.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled Tuesday that Trump's remarks at his “Stop the Steal” rally, held on the Ellipse near the White House shortly before the siege began, “plausibly” were inciting words that are not protected by the First Amendment right to free speech.
The Republican president is not shielded from liability for much of his Jan. 6 conduct, including that speech and many of his social media posts that day, according to the judge. But Mehta said Trump cannot be held liable for his official acts that day, including his Rose Garden remarks during the riot and his interactions with Justice Department officials.
“President Trump has not shown that the Speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duties,” Mehta wrote. “The content of the Ellipse Speech confirms that it is not covered by official-acts immunity."
The decision is not the court's first ruling that Trump can be held liable for the violence at the Capitol and it is unlikely to be the last given the near-certainty of an appeal. But the 79-page ruling sets the stage for a possible civil trial in the same courthouse where Trump was charged with crimes for his Jan. 6 conduct, before his 2024 election ended the prosecution.
Mehta previously refused to dismiss the claims against Trump in a February 2022 ruling that Trump was not entitled to presidential immunity from the claims brought by Democratic members of Congress and law enforcement officers who guarded the Capitol on Jan. 6. In that decision, Mehta also concluded that Trump’s words during his rally speech plausibly amounted to incitement and were not protected by the First Amendment.
The case returned to Mehta after an appeals court ruling upheld his 2022 decision. He said Tuesday's ruling on immunity falls under a more "rigorous" legal standard at this later stage in the litigation.
Mehta, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, said his latest decision is not a “final pronouncement on immunity for any particular act.”
“President Trump remains free to reassert official-acts immunity as a defense at trial. But the burden will remain his and will be subject to a higher standard of proof,” the judge wrote.
Trump spoke to a crowd of his supporters at the rally before the mob’s attack disrupted the joint session of Congress for certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory over Trump. Trump closed out his speech by saying, “We fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump's conduct on Jan. 6 meets the threshold for presidential immunity.
The plaintiffs contended that Trump cannot prove he was acting entirely in his official capacity rather than as an office-seeking private individual. They also said the Supreme Court has held that office-seeking conduct falls outside the scope of presidential immunity.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who at that time led the House Homeland Security Committee, sued Trump, Trump's personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani and members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers extremist groups over the Jan. 6 riot. Other Democratic members of Congress later joined the litigation, which was consolidated with the officers' claims.
The civil claims survived Trump’s sweeping act of clemency on the first day of his second term, when he pardoned, commuted prison sentences and ordered the dismissal of all 1,500-plus criminal cases stemming from the Capitol siege. More than 100 police officers were injured while defending the Capitol from rioters.
The plaintiffs' legal team includes attorneys from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Damon Hewitt, the group's president and executive director, praised the ruling as a “monumental victory for the rule of law, affirming that no one, including the president of the United States, is above it.”
“The court rightly recognizes that President Trump’s actions leading to the January 6 insurrection fell outside the scope of presidential duties," Hewitt said in a statement. “This ruling is an important step toward accountability for the violent attack on the Capitol and our democracy.”
President Donald Trump speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One en route from West Palm Beach, Fla., to Joint Base Andrews, Md., Sunday, March 29, 2026. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
