A high stakes legal battle is playing out in the US Supreme Court as the Biden administration defends federal approval of the abortion pill, mifepristone and a recent move to make it more widely available by mail.

This is the first case involving abortion for the high court since it overturned Roe v Wade last year.

And Justices are considering whether to reverse a lower court ruling that would put restrictions on the drug, which is the most common method of terminating a pregnancy in the US and cut off access through telehealth.

The court will hear oral arguments early next year with a ruling due by the end of June, smack in the middle of the presidential election.

For more on what this major ruling will mean, even in a state like New Jersey where abortion is legal, I'm joined by a Rutgers-Camden law professor, Kim Mutcherson.

Kim, set this up for me.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case, but what's at stake?

So basically, what's at stake is the rules by which mifepristone can be dispensed.

So there was initial approval in 2000 and there were a bunch of requirements that were that the FDA created at that point.

And then they made changes in 2016 and then again made changes in 2021.

So what the Supreme Court has said is we are not going to go back to the 2000 approval.

That's that's done right.

So there's no question here about whether mifepristone is just going to be pulled off the market altogether.

The question is whether the changes that were made in 2016 and 2021 are going to be able to stand.

And those changes were things like how many visits people had to make to the office, changes that allowed people other than physicians to prescribe other people with prescribing authority extended the time period, the gestational age for which medication abortion was available.

So some really big changes that were made.

And the Supreme Court is deciding whether those changes are okay.

And that gestation period would go from ten weeks down to seven.

Asking folks to do up to three doctor's visits were previously they didn't need to.

So what does it all mean for access to this pill, which is widely used?

Yeah.

So the first thing I think I want to be very, very clear on is that absolutely nothing has changed right now.

Right.

We are just waiting.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this spring at some point.

And again, we'll have an exciting summer as we wait for the big decisions from the Supreme Court.

So that means nothing.

Now, what it would mean if they decided that they were going to sort of roll back the clock is that it would be much more difficult to access medication, abortion, even in states where abortion is not banned.

So the difference between being able to say, do an abortion or get your medication through telehealth, right.

So you're at home, you don't have to go to a doctor's office.

You won't have to take time off of work.

You don't have to find somebody to watch the kids you already have at home.

We know that most people who have abortions already have children.

So suddenly you'd have to make three different doctor's visits.

You'd have to know earlier about your pregnancy because it would no longer go up to ten weeks.

Only a physician would be able to prescribe that medication for you.

So there are lots of things that would change if the Supreme Court decides that it's going to go with what the Fifth Circuit decided.

Does this set up, Kim, a larger battle for the pharmaceutical industry?

If the Supreme Court is able to make a decision like this about a drug that the FDA has effectively said is safe for the last few decades?

Yeah.

So I actually think it sets it obviously sets of issues for pharmaceutical companies, right, because this is being decided in the context of a medication.

But it really sets up a much broader fight.

Right.

Which is trying to understand when will the Supreme Court give deference to federal agencies?

And the FDA is one of many, many federal agencies that has a lot of people on staff who are experts in their field, who spend enormous amounts of time thinking about particular problems and coming up with regulations related to those problems.

And so the question is, do we want to trust the experts or do we want the Supreme Court to tell us this is when a medication is safe or this is the kind of regulation that an agency agency should be able to promulgate?

Kim Mutcherson is a professor of law at Rutgers-Camden.

Kim, thank you so much.

Absolutely.

It's always great to talk to you.