This month, the Supreme Court refused to consider a request by anti-abortion groups to impose nationwide restrictions on mifepristone, a safe medication used in most U.S. abortions and for miscarriage care. Without addressing whether mifepristone should be further restricted, the court found that these anti-abortion plaintiffs lack “legal standing” – meaning they do not have a sufficient connection to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulation of mifepristone to be able to challenge the agency’s decisions in court.

The court’s decision is a relief, but we should not be dazzled by the fact that the justices did the right thing based purely on a legal technicality. While the Supreme Court refused to allow these particular anti-abortion groups to bring this case, extremist politicians have vowed to continue to use the courts and the law to strip away access to medication abortion nationwide. Below, we break down why this case matters, and what happens next.

The plaintiffs in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA are organizations and doctors who want to see all abortion banned nationwide. To further their agenda, they used junk science to target access to mifepristone, a medication used in most U.S. abortions. They filed this lawsuit in Amarillo, Texas, where they could guarantee it would be heard by a Trump-appointed district court judge with a record of hostility to abortion. That district judge rubber-stamped all of their requests, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely did the same – overriding the consensus of the FDA and every leading national medical authority in order to impose medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone.

In its decision, the Supreme Court did not address the plaintiffs’ arguments that mifepristone should be severely restricted. The court found that the lawsuit suffered from a critical defect: the anti-abortion groups and doctors who brought the case lack legal standing. As the court explained, these anti-abortion plaintiffs don’t prescribe mifepristone and have no actual connection to the FDA’s regulation of the drug. Instead, “the plaintiffs want [the] FDA to make mifepristone more difficult for other doctors to prescribe and for pregnant women to obtain.” But under the Constitution, “a plaintiff ’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue.”

For now, the court’s decision preserves the state-level patchwork access to medication abortion that has existed since the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade in 2022. That means that, for the time being, people across the United States can continue to fill their mifepristone prescriptions through mail-order and retail pharmacies, just as they would for any other similarly safe medication – without having to travel, sometimes hundreds of miles, just to pick up a pill. Health care professionals with specialized training, like nurse-practitioners, will also maintain the ability to prescribe mifepristone where state law allows. Furthermore, in the U.S. nearly 1 in 5 abortions relies on telemedicine. For many people – including low-income patients, people of color, folks in rural areas, and women in abusive households – retaining accessibility options, such as telemedicine, is essential – especially when it may be impossible to arrange and afford lengthy transportation and childcare, to secure time off work, or to escape the surveillance of an abuser in order to access time-sensitive care.

The court’s order also forestalls the dire consequences the American Cancer Society and many other patient advocacy groups warned of should the court override the FDA’s actions and undermine drug development and impede access to critical medications well beyond reproductive health care.

There is no credible dispute about mifepristone’s safety. The nation’s leading medical associations describe the science confirming its safety as “overwhelming.” While all drugs carry risks, medical experts have explained that mifepristone is among the safest medications used in medical practice today – safer than Viagra or penicillin – with serious complications experienced by fewer than 1 percent of patients.

By contrast, the plaintiffs’ evidence rested on testimony and research from a few anti-abortion doctors who travel the country peddling junk science about abortion safety. As the ACLU explained in a friend-of-the-court brief, when other courts have heard these folks testify, time and again, they have discredited them. For instance, Dr. Ingrid Skop – cited 17 times in the appellate court’s ruling– had her testimony on abortion thrown out by a Florida court two years ago for being “inaccurate.” Dr. Skop admitted under oath in 2020 that she is “not a really good researcher,” so it’s no surprise that her research on mifepristone was published by a fringe advocacy group known for promoting blatantly false conspiracy theories, such as that President Barack Obama hypnotized listeners with his speeches. Several of the studies relied on by these plaintiffs have been retracted because they are so profoundly flawed. Another study is based on 98 anonymous blogs.

Maintaining access to mifepristone has never been more crucial. Since it was approved in 2000, nearly 6 million people in the United States, and millions more globally, have used this medication. Today, medication abortion comprises almost two-thirds of all abortions in this country.

%3Ciframe%20class%3D%22media-youtube-player%22%20width%3D%22580%22%20height%3D%22324%22%20title%3D%22SCOTUS%20on%20Mifepristone%20%7C%20ACLU%20%23shorts%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube-nocookie.com%2Fembed%2F7ZmieuXQZEI%3Fwmode%3Dopaque%26amp%3Bcontrols%3D1%26amp%3Bmodestbranding%3D1%26amp%3Brel%3D0%26amp%3Bshowinfo%3D0%26amp%3Bcolor%3Dwhite%26autoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%26playsinline%3D1%22%20name%3D%22SCOTUS%20on%20Mifepristone%20%7C%20ACLU%20%23shorts%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%20id%3D%22SCOTUS%20on%20Mifepristone%20%7C%20ACLU%20%23shorts%22%20allow%3D%22autoplay%22%3EVideo%20of%20SCOTUS%20on%20Mifepristone%20%7C%20ACLU%20%23shorts%3C%2Fiframe%3E

Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube-nocookie.com.

The Supreme Court refused to allow these particular anti-abortion groups to bring this case, but extremist politicians are waiting in the wings to continue this campaign to strip away access to medication abortion nationwide. Indeed, the same Trump-appointed district judge in Texas has already permitted Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri to intervene in the district court proceedings on the same side as the anti-abortion groups. And these extremist politicians have said that they will try to continue this case in Texas – even though the Supreme Court just found that the original plaintiffs lack standing – or else bring copycat lawsuits in other jurisdictions.

Moreover, in the coming weeks, the Supreme Court will decide another abortion case that will determine whether politicians can force doctors to withhold emergency room care from their patients suffering severe pregnancy complications. These cases show how far politicians will go to prevent people from getting the reproductive health care they need.

Since Roe was overturned, every time an abortion issue has been put to the ballot, the people have voted in favor of access. Politicians are relentless in their attacks, but a majority of this country believes that people must have the power to make personal decisions during pregnancy. We’ll continue using every tool at our disposal to fight back against these cruel and deeply unpopular attacks on our health, our futures, and our bodily autonomy.

Join us in this fight to expand and restore our rights by urging legislators to pass federal legislation that safeguards our reproductive freedom – including abortion, birth control, AND IVF care.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made his last stand in the fight for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in St. Augustine, Florida, weeks before the landmark legislation was signed into law.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, gender, religion, and national origin, was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on July 2, 1964, marking the culmination of years of relentless activism by Black civil rights leaders.

King was drawn to the St. Augustine demonstrations by Dr. Robert Hayling, a local dentist, and leader of the NAACP Youth Council. Hayling was a leading figure in the St. Augustine Movement. In 1963, St. Augustine, a city with a population of 15,000, including 3,500 Black residents, requested $350,000 from the Kennedy White House in support of quadricentennial celebrations. The local NAACP urged the administration to deny the funding due to the city’s segregationist practices.

In July, Dr. Hayling intensified the protests, including one at a local Woolworth’s lunch counter, where four Black youths, known as the St. Augustine Four, were arrested on July 18, 1963, for sitting in a “whites only” section: JoeAnn Anderson, Audrey Nell Edwards, Willie Carl Singleton, and Samuel White were detained in reform schools for six months after refusing plea deals to cease their activism. They refused to be complicit in the suppression of free speech.

Demonstrations persisted through Labor Day, following the March on Washington on August 28, 1963. Dr. Hayling and other local leaders faced vicious attacks by white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and local authorities. When he was threatened with a criminal conviction, Hayling was dismissed from the NAACP.

After the August march, President John Kennedy faced mounting pressure nationally to propose federal civil rights legislation. His assassination on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas, propelled Vice President Lyndon Johnson into the presidency. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Johnson urged Congress for immediate action to pass a civil rights bill, and announced his “War on Poverty” campaign.

Meanwhile, Jacksonville NAACP attorney Earl M. Johnson’s efforts to release the St. Augustine Four initially failed, but he garnered national attention from major figures like Jackie Robinson. This led to intervention by Gov. C. Farris Bryant and the Florida Legislature, securing the youths’ release in January 1964.

Early in 1964, organizers led marches to the city’s Old Slave Market, the plaza where Black Africans were brought to Florida by the Spanish beginning in the 16th century, in a symbolic stand challenging segregationist practices. Dr. Hayling called for support in challenging racism in public practice from Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), including Andrew Young.

In March 1964, Mary Elizabeth Peabody, an activist and mother of incumbent Massachusetts Gov. Endicott Peabody, was arrested at the Ponce de Leon Motor Lodge while protesting with Hayling. This led to an overnight stay at the St. Johns County jail. News of the arrest of an elderly white relative of a prominent Northeast politician by deputies was credited for focusing national attention on the de jure racism in America’s oldest modern settlement, and for discouraging tourism to the city immediately thereafter.

By May 1964, racially integrated demonstrations escalated to wade-ins at local pools, beaches, and other public places. The SCLC recruited progressive white college students from the Northeast to come down to Florida to join the protests. The clashes between protesters and local authorities continued into mid-year, as civil rights legislation moved through and stalled in Congress. Hayling, Dr. King, and Rev. Young continued demonstrations to sustain national media attention.

Dr. King was arrested on June 11, 1964 at the Monson Motor Lodge in St. Augustine, for attempting to integrate a restaurant. King’s arrest occurred a day after the Senate voted to end a filibuster that stalled the passage of the Civil Rights Act. From the St. Johns County jail, he penned his “Letter from the St. Augustine Jail,” urging the Jewish community in New Jersey to join the fight against oppression in St. Augustine.

“There will be neither peace nor tranquility in this community until the righteous demands of the Negro are fully met.”
_{—Dr. King and Dr. Hayling, June 18, 1964}

On June 18, 1964, more than a dozen Jewish rabbis were arrested while holding a vigil at the Monson Motor Lodge. That same day, protesters attempted to integrate a pool, prompting the management to pour acid into it. The rabbis and protesters were all hauled off to the St. Johns County jail.

Gov. Bryant’s attempts to ban protests failed, and days later, an integrated wade-in was held at a whites-only beach. On June 30, 1964, he established a biracial commission to address the unrest. The following day, SCLC organizers left St. Augustine.

Dr. King, along with other dignitaries, stood behind President Johnson as he signed the Civil Rights Act into law on Thursday, July 2, 1964. By the end of July, the Monson Motor Lodge, along with other St. Augustine “whites only” establishments, desegregated.

The impact of the Civil Rights Act was immutable. It made it illegal, under federal law, to deny anyone employment or access to public accommodations based on race, color, gender, religion, or national origin.

This signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 marked the beginning of a slew of civil rights legislation championed by President Johnson. This included the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Great Society programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, and the Civil Rights Act of 1968, better known as the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act was signed into law a week after the assassination of Dr. King and in the wake of the release of the widely praised Kerner Commission report on civil disturbances.

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law, Barack Obama, who would become America’s first Black president in 2008, was barely three years old, and his future wife, Michelle Robinson, was only six months old. The country they would inherit would be significantly more open and inclusive than the one their parents experienced.

Yet in 2024, we are seeing efforts to censor this very history in Florida. The “Stop W.O.K.E.” Act, signed into law in 2022, is a classroom censorship law that severely restricts Florida educators and students from learning and discussing issues related to race and gender in higher education classrooms. While it is permanently blocked by court order, we know that we must remain committed to fighting against policies that censor Black history.

The efforts of freedom fighters like Dr. Hayling, supported by stalwarts like Dr. King in St. Augustine, exposed the deleterious effects of segregation, and underscored the necessity of ending it once and for all. They also set an example of what it means to advocate for freedom.

As we reflect on the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we must remember our forebears and their fight for freedom. We must protect their legacy. We must defend the rights of others. We must continue the work to make this country a place where everyone is free to pursue the constitutional promise of life, liberty, and justice.

Donald Trump’s administration initiated a sustained, years-long effort to erase protections for LGBTQ people. This included an effort to “define ‘transgender’ out of existence,” erode protections for transgender students and workers, and weaken access to gender-affirming health care that most transgender people already struggled to access.

While President Joe Biden’s administration reversed much of the Trump-era abuses, just last month on the campaign trail, Trump vowed to dismantle a new Biden administration policy that will offer protections for transgender students under Title IX, a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in education.

The ACLU is prepared to defend the LGBTQ community, including transgender individuals, from a second Trump administration’s anticipated attempts to weaponize federal law against them. Learn more in our breakdown:

The Facts: Trump has promised that, if reelected, his administration will rescind federal policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and will assert that federal civil rights laws don’t cover anti-LGBTQ discrimination. In addition to rolling back existing protections, a second Trump administration will proactively mandate discrimination by the federal government wherever it can. Lastly, and perhaps most ominously, if Trump returns to the White House, we expect his administration to use federal law – including laws meant to safeguard civil rights – as a cudgel to override critical state-level protections for transgender students and to force state and local governments, as well as private organizations, to allow or even perpetuate discrimination

Why It Matters: A second Trump administration would strip LGBTQ people of protections against discrimination in many contexts, including employment, housing, education, health care, and a range of federal government programs. The Trump administration’s proposed policies would ban transgender people from serving openly in the armed forces and block gender-affirming medical care for transgender people enrolled in federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare. The effects of these cruel – and unconstitutional – discrimination efforts would be devastating, as thousands of transgender people would immediately lose access to needed medical care and the right to live freely without fear. In essence, a potential second Trump administration would seek to erase transgender people from public life entirely by using federal laws – including obscenity laws – to criminalize gender nonconformity.

Trump on LGBTQ Rights

In the second installment of the ACLU’s election 2024 memo series, our experts detail the threats a potential second Trump administration poses to the

Source: American Civil Liberties Union

How We Got Here: The Trump administration was openly hostile toward the LGBTQ community and vehemently opposed the Equality Act, which would have ensured that existing civil rights protections cover sexual orientation and gender identity in the way that they already do for race, disability, veteran status, and more. The Trump administration also blocked basic job protections for LGBTQ people, insisting that employers should be free to fire workers for their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Department of Health and Human Services under the Trump administration also eliminated nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people established under the Affordable Care Act.

Critically, the Trump administration had an enormous impact on the courts, including the Supreme Court. Getting courts to understand the experience of transgender people and the impact of discriminatory policies on their lives was difficult even before Trump reshaped the judiciary. It is that much harder today because of the viewpoints of the judges and justices Trump appointed to the federal courts and Supreme Court.

Our Roadmap: Should a second Trump administration take office, the ACLU will use the courts to affirm that LGBTQ people are protected from discrimination under federal law, to invalidate policies mandating discrimination across the federal government, and to shut down Trump’s expected efforts to weaponize the Constitution and federal laws to require discrimination against LGBTQ people by state and local governments and private entities.

Litigation is not our only pathway to push back against anti-LGBTQ policies. Congress can, and must, use the power of the purse and its oversight and investigative authorities to constrain a second Trump administration’s extreme anti-LGBTQ agenda. The ACLU will aggressively lobby members of Congress who support the transgender community to use the appropriations process, in particular, to hinder Trump’s ability to mandate anti-trans discrimination and weaponize federal law against LGBTQ rights.

The ACLU also has a comprehensive state-level plan of attack. We will advocate for states and school boards to protect LGBTQ students by enacting guidance regarding updating student names and pronouns, and by creating inclusive rules on gender-based activities, best practices for school records, and ways to support transgender students living under a federal government that discriminates against them. We’ll also urge states to support policies that prevent their governments from being complicit in a second Trump administration’s efforts to attack the legitimacy of transgender people in our world. Lastly, we will mobilize public support on behalf of vulnerable children and youth to deter further draconian policies and help reshape the political narrative around transgender justice.

What Our Experts Say: “We have seen the disastrous consequences of a hateful campaign targeting LGBTQ people and their families with discriminatory laws, forcing many from their home states and denying many more the freedom to get the health care they need to live their lives openly, and even to decide what name to go by. We are determined to use every tool at our disposal to oppose any attempt to deny LGBTQ people the freedom to live and love freely and openly.” – Mike Zamore, national director for policy & government affairs

“For four years, President Trump and his administration left no stone unturned in their effort to attack the right of LGBTQ people to live and work as who we are. We fully expect a second Trump administration to go further, weaponizing federal law to override state level protections and mandate discrimination by schools and health care providers nationwide. Regardless of the election’s outcome, we stand ready to fight to uphold the fundamental freedom we are guaranteed by the Constitution to live our lives as we choose.” – James Esseks, director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project.

What You Can Do Today: As wave after wave of extreme measures to criminalize and strip trans people of rights and safety continue, the time to act is now. Tell your members of Congress to protect trans people from discrimination today.

Sign up now to receive key issue memos as they’re released — and breaking alerts for all our work for civil liberties.