Three Republican states went to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to challenge abortion “shield laws” protecting providers in three Democratic states, escalating the legal conflict over pills that account for a majority of abortions.
The attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas and Louisiana contend that the laws in California, Massachusetts and New York undermine their abortion bans and their states' sovereignty. Federal regulations allow prescriptions for abortion pills to be made by telehealth and filled by mail, and the three GOP states want to keep the pills out and punish out-of-state providers for sending them.
Click to Gallery
FILE - Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall talks to reporters outside of the Supreme Court, Dec. 4, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
FILE - A coordinator shows the medications and care kit sent out the clients at the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project, May 13, 2025, in Somerville, Mass. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa, File)
FILE - Supporters applaud as Democratic Ohio Senate candidate Sherrod Brown, a former three-term U.S. senator, speaks at a campaign event in Akron, Ohio, on July 16, 2026. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki, File)
FILE - Democratic Ohio Senate candidate Sherrod Brown, a former three-term U.S. senator, speaks at a campaign event in Akron, Ohio, on July 16, 2026. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki, File)
“This is the first time we've seen a state or group of states suing other states to challenge the validity of shield laws,” said Mary Ziegler, a University of California, Davis, law professor and author of seven books on abortion law and history.
The Supreme Court can hear disputes between states directly, though it rarely does. If the top court weighs in, it could short-circuit existing lawsuits.
Louisiana and anti-abortion activists have been frustrated with a lack of federal action by President Donald Trump's administration against medication abortion. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration over its rules allowing mail-order prescriptions. The Supreme Court in May preserved access to abortion medications as that case plays out.
“We need and deserve the opportunity to be able to enforce our laws against those who have chosen, despite their knowledge of the illegality, to continue to foster abortion in our state,” Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said during a news conference with Murrill and Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin.
Thirteen states ban abortion in all stages of pregnancy, which the Supreme Court allowed in its 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Most Democratic-controlled states adopted abortion protections, including eight with laws intended to protect providers who prescribe abortion pills for patients in states with bans.
Louisiana and Texas have pursued criminal charges and civil claims against doctors based in New York and California. Officials in California and New York have refused to cooperate, citing their shield laws.
“Louisiana, Alabama, and Arkansas are asking the Supreme Court to let them impose their abortion bans on New York and punish our doctors for providing legal health care,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement Wednesday.
Ziegler said Alabama, Arkansas and Louisiana would have a stronger case if they had first tried to get the highest court in one of the three other states to force its officials to cooperate. She also said the lawsuit's timing is odd — six weeks before November congressional midterm elections that could prove difficult for the GOP.
“This may be an example of the political incentives not being the same for state-level Republicans versus federal Republicans,” she said. “If you're running in a contested race, calling attention to abortion is not a great idea, but if you're Louisiana attorney general, you're not really in that position.”
But Rachel Rebouche, a University of Texas law professor, said suing other states has been a potential legal strategy for GOP states since the first shield laws were enacted.
“That it’s taken this long is kind of remarkable,” she said.
Even before Roe was overturned, abortion pills were the most common means of ending pregnancies in the U.S., and telehealth makes abortion available even where it's banned. The three GOP attorneys general said hundreds of patients in their states use pills to end pregnancies each month.
Also on Wednesday, Alabama, Arkansas and Louisiana filed a lawsuit against 30 out-of-state abortion pill providers and their officers, accusing them of false advertising and other misconduct harming patients in states with abortion bans.
FDA scientists have repeatedly found the regimen safe and effective, though the agency is now reviewing its rules.
FILE - Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall talks to reporters outside of the Supreme Court, Dec. 4, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
FILE - A coordinator shows the medications and care kit sent out the clients at the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project, May 13, 2025, in Somerville, Mass. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa, File)
FILE - Supporters applaud as Democratic Ohio Senate candidate Sherrod Brown, a former three-term U.S. senator, speaks at a campaign event in Akron, Ohio, on July 16, 2026. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki, File)
FILE - Democratic Ohio Senate candidate Sherrod Brown, a former three-term U.S. senator, speaks at a campaign event in Akron, Ohio, on July 16, 2026. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki, File)
Manchester City faces an uncertain future after the decorated English soccer club was found guilty of systematically breaking the Premier League's financial rules for nearly a decade.
The verdict, delivered by an independent disciplinary commission, leaves open an array of sanctions including a fine, points deduction or even expulsion from the Premier League. City could also face possible compensation claims from rival teams, while its ownership — the Abu Dhabi-controlled City Football Group — is coming under increasing scrutiny.
The club has rejected the verdict in a case that dates to 2018 and mainly covers its financial dealings from 2009-18, and promises a relentless campaign to clear its name.
Here's a look at what's next in one of the biggest scandals in English soccer history:
City can appeal the verdict and has insisted it will.
“The Club is innocent of the accusations made by the Premier League and a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence exists in support of all of its positions,” City said in a statement. “The Club will therefore be relentless, and where necessary proactive, in any and all appropriate regulatory and legal forums.”
To make its appeal, City would need to send an email to the chair of the independent commission's three-person panel, who would then appoint a new appeal board — also consisting of three people, one of whom “shall have held judicial office,” according to the Premier League handbook.
The board will then schedule a hearing that should finish within 12 weeks after the appeal is filed and not exceed five consecutive days.
City’s punishment will be addressed in a separate, confidential hearing with the independent commission.
The Premier League statement didn't mention whether sanctions can be imposed before the decision of the appeal is reached, only that it was the league's intention that the process is concluded “as soon as possible.”
According to the Premier League, the independent commission could issue a reprimand, fine, suspension, points deduction or, in the worst case, expel the club from the competition. Clubs have been expelled from lower leagues in England but never from the Premier League.
A club that is expelled from the Premier League could apply for membership in the English Football League, which runs the three divisions below the Premier League: the Championship, League One and League Two. The EFL's regulations say it “could be asked to accommodate any former Premier League Club(s) in League Two.”
The biggest points deduction handed to a Premier League team was 10 to Everton in 2023, for overspending in one three-year financial period. That deduction was later reduced to six after an appeal. City’s breaches are much more widespread and included a refusal to cooperate, unlike Everton.
Separately, the Independent Football Regulator — a body established by the British government last year to set governance standards in English soccer — could intervene in the City case.
The new regulator is independent of soccer authorities and has the power to remove club owners if they are found unsuitable.
“The independent commission’s decision raises serious issues,” IFR chairman David Kogan said on Wednesday.
“The IFR has powers to assess the suitability of owners, directors and executives and we will use these powers where appropriate, in the interests of protecting the sustainability, honesty and integrity of English football where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing by individuals,” he said.
Kogan said the IFR was awaiting further developments in the ongoing proceedings between City and the Premier League.
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham said he would be “really concerned” to lose City’s current ownership.
“They’ve been such a huge partner in the building of modern Manchester,” Burnham, who was formerly the mayor of Manchester, said to the BBC. “Obviously, the building of Manchester City into the global force that it is.”
Asked if he would be willing to listen to the United Arab Emirates government about the matter, Burnham said: “I am not getting directly involved in the process. I’ve not spoken to anybody directly about that. I have to keep my distance from it. It would be wrong for me to do anything else. It’s an independent legal process that has to play its course through.”
The Man City case is a disciplinary proceeding, not a criminal investigation. However, some have suggested that British authorities also should look at matter.
“If accounts have been falsified and auditors have been misled, then it is potentially a criminal matter,” Lord Cruddas, a Conservative peer, told the BBC. “The auditors will call in the police, directors are personally liable for any fraud of a UK company even if it is foreign-owned.”
According to the Fraud Act of 2006, individuals can face up to 10 years in prison if they are found to have dishonestly made a false representation with the intention of making a gain or avoiding a loss.
There have been no reports of any criminal investigation in the case.
Etihad Airways, City's main sponsor, was considering legal against the Premier League for the way the investigation findings were communicated, Sky News reported late Wednesday.
Sky News quoted an Etihad statement saying “we stand with the club,” adding that the Abu Dhabi-based airline said it would “seek the relevant legal counsel on the options and recourse available to protect its interests . . . at no time did the Premier League reach out to or engage with Etihad in the process associated with the commission’s opinion.”
No club has publicly announced its intention to make a compensation claim based on the impact of City's rule-breaking. However, the BBC has reported that a number of clubs had started seeking advice over whether they would have a case for financial compensation, before the verdict had been announced.
A precedent was set this year when Everton was ordered to pay more than 35 million pounds ($47 million) in compensation to Burnley, which successfully argued to a disciplinary commission that it would have survived relegation — at Everton’s expense — in the 2021-22 campaign had its rival been given its six-point penalty for the financial breaches that season.
In City's case, top teams could argue they lost out on titles or Champions League qualification — worth tens of millions of dollars each season — because of City's conduct, and weaker teams could claim defeats to City's expensively assembled squads contributed to relegation or lower finishing positions in the league standings, and therefore reduced prize money.
See AP’s full soccer coverage here
Manchester City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak, left, and chief executive Ferran Soriano arrive to watch the Champions League opening phase soccer match between Manchester City and Feyenoord at the Etihad Stadium in Manchester, England, Tuesday, Nov. 26, 2024. (AP Photo/Dave Thompson)
FILE - A general view of the stadium ahead of the FA Cup third round soccer match between Manchester City and Manchester United at the Etihad stadium, Manchester, England, Sunday, Jan. 8, 2012. (AP Photo/Scott Heppell, File)
FILE - A general view of the Etihad Stadium ahead of the English FA Cup soccer match between Manchester City and Plymouth Argyle, Manchester, England, Saturday, March 1, 2025. (AP Photo/Jon Super, File)
FILE - Flares and tape are let off as Manchester City's players celebrate on stage as fans watch the winners parade as the team celebrates winning the English Premier League title in Manchester, England, Monday, May 23, 2022. (AP Photo/Jon Super, File)
FILE - A exterior shot of the stadium before the English Premier League soccer match between Manchester City and Arsenal at the Etihad Stadium in Manchester, England, Wednesday, June 17, 2020. (Peter Powell/Pool via AP, File)
