Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a34_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

4 

FDA v. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND 
GYNECOLOGISTS 
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

medication  abortions.    Women  must  still  go  to  a  clinic  in 
person  to  pick  up  their  mifepristone  prescriptions,  even 
though  physicians  may  provide  all  counseling  virtually, 
women may ingest the drug unsupervised at home, and any 
complications will occur long after the patient has left the 
clinic. 

B 
  This summer, representatives of the Nation’s healthcare 
providers, including the American College of Obstetricians 
and  Gynecologists  (ACOG)  and  the  Council  of  University 
Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology (CUCOG), along with 
SisterSong  Women  of  Color  Reproductive  Justice  Collec-
tive, filed suit to enjoin the Federal Government from en-
forcing  mifepristone’s  in-person  requirements  during  the 
COVID–19 pandemic.  In a thorough opinion, the District 
Court  concluded  that  the  in-person  requirements  likely 
placed a “substantial obstacle” in the path of women seek-
ing  abortions  during  the  pandemic.    472  F. Supp.  3d  183, 
216 (D Md. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).  The 
court preliminarily enjoined the Government from enforc-
ing mifepristone’s in-person requirements during the pan-
demic.    Id.,  at  233.    The  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Fourth 
Circuit denied the Government’s request for a stay of that 
injunction.  The Government then applied for a stay from 
this Court.   
  In early October, this Court issued an order holding the 
Government’s application in abeyance so the District Court 
could  consider  a  yet-to-be-filed  motion  from  the  Govern-
ment to dissolve, stay, or modify the injunction, “including 
on the ground that relevant circumstances have changed.”  
592 U. S. ___ (2020) (slip op., at 1).  The Government filed 
such  a  motion,  but  the  District  Court  concluded  that  no 
changed circumstances justified a stay or dissolution of the 
injunction.  ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___, 2020 WL 7240396, *14 
(D Md., Dec. 9, 2020).  Indeed, the District Court found that