Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison welcomed on May 1 a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that would have restricted access to mifepristone, a medication used in abortion care. The stay was issued shortly after Ellison and a coalition of 22 states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief urging the court to halt the lower court’s order.
The case has drawn attention because it could affect how people in Minnesota and across the country access abortion care, especially through telehealth services. The Fifth Circuit’s ruling would have required patients to receive mifepristone in person, despite evidence that it can be safely provided remotely.
In their brief, Ellison and other attorneys general argued that “the Fifth Circuit’s ruling is not supported by law or science, would create regulatory and administrative chaos nationwide, and would interfere with states’ ability to protect access to reproductive health care within their borders, particularly in rural and medically-underserved areas.” They called on the Supreme Court to prevent these restrictions from taking effect.
“Abortion care is healthcare, period. I cannot let a highly politicized court from another part of the country impose restrictions on abortion care that are not supported by law or science on Minnesotans,” Attorney General Ellison said. “I welcome the temporary stay the court issued and strongly urge it be extended.”
Since its approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000, about 7.5 million people have used mifepristone safely in combination with misoprostol for medication abortions up to ten weeks into pregnancy. In recent years, telehealth has become more common for providing this service; Minnesota saw an increase from five percent of abortions via telemedicine in 2022 to twenty-seven percent in 2025.
Ellison also highlighted that abortion remains protected under Minnesota’s constitution since a state supreme court decision nearly thirty years ago. He warned that reinstating stricter requirements could strain clinics already facing increased demand following changes at the federal level.
The attorneys general maintain that federal courts should not use drug regulations as grounds for overriding state policies where abortion is legal: “The attorneys general argue that courts cannot leverage medically unnecessary federal drug regulations to override those state policy choices or impose unnecessary barriers to care in states where abortion is legal.”