Melissa Murray

But I think anything the FDA does would likely to be challenged.

I think it depends on how this decision writes.

If this is a decision that takes seriously the question of federalism, as you alluded to earlier, then there is probably an opening for someone in California.

It just may limit

The importation of meprofistone to states that have very robust restrictions on abortion.

It wouldn't necessarily, depending on how it's written, it wouldn't necessarily prevent people from Louisiana from leaving the state unless Louisiana wrote a law that made it impossible for people to leave the state, although I think that could be challenged.

on constitutional grounds regarding the right to travel.

Brett Kavanaugh mentioned that and his concurrence in Dobbs as well.

So there are a lot of open avenues.

I think one thing that is really interesting and deeply implicated by this case and the questions it raises is what happens to

to physicians in blue states who prescribe mifepristone.

And then the prescriptions are going to people in other places, whether it's Louisiana or whatnot.

And those are big questions and likely to implicate the spate of shield laws that have been enacted in the wake of Dobbs that haven't really been tested at the Supreme Court yet.

Well, what did the court do there?

So what does the court tell us it's doing?

And what does the court actually do may be two very different things.

And maybe we should parse that for a little bit.

The court in that case said that it was doing no more than realigning the terms of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with the jurisprudence that it has issued.

Anytime the court says it's realigning something, it's pretty much either eviscerating it or overruling it.

So they are presenting this as a kind of modest change or update.