MONTGOMERY, AL. — Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has joined the attorneys general of Louisiana and Arkansas in announcing two legal challenges involving abortion medication distributed across state lines, including a lawsuit filed in the United States Supreme Court challenging abortion-related shield laws enacted by New York, California and Massachusetts.
Marshall, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill and Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin argue that the laws interfere with their states’ ability to enforce restrictions on abortion and the distribution of abortion-inducing medications.
The legal challenges center on differing approaches to abortion regulation following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the federal constitutional right to abortion established under Roe v. Wade and returned substantial authority over abortion regulation to individual states.
New York, California and Massachusetts subsequently enacted laws designed to protect certain abortion providers from legal actions originating in states where abortion is more heavily restricted. These measures generally limit cooperation with out-of-state investigations, restrict certain extradition requests and prevent enforcement of some out-of-state judgments involving reproductive healthcare services.
Supporters of shield laws maintain that the protections allow healthcare providers to offer services permitted under their own states’ laws without facing legal consequences imposed by states with different abortion policies.
Alabama, Louisiana and Arkansas contend that those protections extend beyond the borders of the states that enacted them and interfere with the enforcement of their own laws.
In their Supreme Court challenge, the three states argue that the shield laws violate several constitutional and legal principles, including the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the equal-sovereignty doctrine, the Dormant Commerce Clause and federal common-law principles concerning public nuisance.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause generally requires states to recognize certain public acts, records and judicial proceedings of other states, although its application to the disputed shield-law provisions is among the legal questions raised by the challenge.
“Alabama’s pro-life laws exist to protect mothers and their children,” Marshall said in announcing the legal action. He characterized the interstate distribution of abortion medication as an effort to circumvent Alabama law and argued that the state has the authority to enforce its abortion restrictions.
In a separate legal action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, the three states are pursuing claims against 30 individuals and organizations allegedly involved in advertising, prescribing, dispensing and shipping abortion-inducing medications into states with abortion restrictions.
The attorneys general allege that the defendants engaged in coordinated activities that violated state laws and created a public nuisance. They further claim that some individuals and organizations made false or misleading representations about the safety, effectiveness, legality and potential risks of abortion medications, including the circumstances in which patients may require in-person medical attention.
Those allegations are claims made by the states and have not been established as findings of fact by a court.
Medication abortion is commonly performed using mifepristone and misoprostol. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved mifepristone for use in medication abortion under specified conditions, and the medications remain the subject of ongoing legal and regulatory disputes.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said the litigation is intended to protect her state’s ability to enforce abortion restrictions enacted by its Legislature.
“We will not allow activist states, activist providers, or distributors profiting from killing babies to threaten Louisiana’s sovereignty, violate Louisiana law, or endanger Louisiana women and babies,” Murrill said.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin similarly emphasized his state’s interest in enforcing existing laws.
“The rule of law matters, and with this civil action, we are sending a clear signal that our states take our laws seriously,” Griffin said.
In the federal district court action, the states are requesting a declaration that the alleged conduct constitutes a public nuisance. They are also seeking injunctive relief, damages, civil penalties, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and court costs.
The Supreme Court challenge raises broader questions about how states with conflicting abortion laws must recognize one another’s legal authority, particularly when medical services are provided remotely and medications cross state lines.
The outcome could have implications for interstate enforcement of abortion restrictions and the legal protections available to healthcare providers operating in states where abortion services remain lawful.
Neither the allegations against the defendants nor the constitutional challenges to the shield laws should be interpreted as resolved unless and until the courts issue rulings on those questions.
Additional reporting: New York Attorney General Letitia James has defended her state’s shield law, saying the lawsuit seeks to penalize New York physicians for providing healthcare that is legal in their state. Legal scholars have also noted that the Supreme Court is not automatically required to hear the interstate dispute simply because it was filed directly with the justices.
