A divided Sixth Circuit has left in place an injunction blocking part of Tennessee’s so-called abortion “trafficking” law, holding that the statute’s ban on “recruiting” minors for out-of-state abortions is likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The ruling in Rachel Welty, et al v. Bryant Dunaway, et al is an important signal that abortion-related counseling, advocacy, and assistance may still receive robust constitutional protection even in the post-Dobbs landscape.

The challenged Tennessee law aims to criminalize certain conduct involving minors seeking abortions outside the state.

A federal judge in South Dakota has preliminarily enjoined enforcement of a state abortion-advertising restriction against a reproductive-health education nonprofit and an attorney, concluding the challengers are likely to succeed on their First Amendment claims. The ruling is another important entry in the growing body of post-Dobbs litigation testing how far states can go when regulating not just abortion procedures, but speech about abortion.

At this stage, the court did not finally decide the statute’s constitutionality.

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted emergency relief that keeps nationwide access to mifepristone by telemedicine and mail in place while litigation over the FDA’s regulatory approach moves forward. The order does not resolve the merits, but it preserves the current framework for prescribing and distributing the abortion pill for now — an important signal in a dispute with consequences well beyond reproductive health.

The underlying case challenges FDA decisions that allowed broader access to mifepristone, including dispensing through the mail and via telehealth.

The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily preserved broader access to mifepristone, blocking a lower-court ruling that would have allowed Idaho to enforce restrictions affecting the abortion pill while the litigation moves forward. The order does not resolve the merits, but it keeps the status quo in place and signals that the justices remain deeply engaged in how post-Dobbs abortion disputes intersect with federal drug regulation.

The immediate legal question is narrower than the broader political debate: how far can a state go in limiting access to an FDA-approved drug when that access is also shaped by federal regulatory decisions? That tension has become a central battleground since Dobbs, especially where states seek to impose restrictions that may conflict with the FDA’s approval framework, labeling decisions, and distribution rules.

For litigators, the Court’s temporary intervention is a reminder that emergency relief in reproductive-rights cases can effectively determine access on the ground long before a final merits ruling.

Litigation over mifepristone is poised to remain one of the most closely watched legal battlegrounds of 2026, with challenges unfolding across multiple fronts at once: federal agency authority, state abortion restrictions, drug distribution rules, and preemption.