Arkansas, together with Louisiana and Alabama, last month filed two separate lawsuits aimed at states and providers that offer or protect mail-order medication abortion, the actions reflecting a continuing legal fight over how abortion access is regulated across state lines.
What the lawsuits seek
- One complaint filed in federal court in Louisiana targets roughly 29 telehealth providers that furnish medication abortion to patients in multiple states.
- A second case was filed directly with the U.S. Supreme Court and asks justices to invalidate so-called shield laws enacted by New York, Massachusetts and California that protect providers operating there from legal actions initiated by states with abortion bans.
Both suits were filed Sept. 30, according to attorneys involved in the litigation, and frame a constitutional question about the extent to which one state can shield conduct that other states deem illegal. The cases raise issues including the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which generally requires states to respect the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of other states.
“The lawsuit targeting shield laws raises the issue of whether or not these competing policy positions of the states can exist, with one state essentially reaching across state lines to control the other states,” said John DiPippa, professor emeritus at the Bowen School of Law at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
Attorneys for the filing states argue that shield laws and out-of-state telehealth services permit residents of states with strict abortion restrictions to obtain medication that those states prohibit, and that allows conduct in one jurisdiction that another regards as unlawful. Supporters of the shield laws contend the statutes are intended to protect providers and patients in their states and to preserve the ability to prescribe and deliver medication abortion under the law of those states.
Legal context and recent precedent
Abortion policy has been governed by state law since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned authority over abortion regulation to the states. The new suits trade on tensions between state sovereignty over criminal and regulatory matters and protections that some states have enacted for providers and patients within their borders.
National reproductive rights researchers reported last year that at least 5,650 Arkansans received abortions in 2024 despite the state's near-total ban, most of those services obtained outside Arkansas, the reports said.
The litigation sets up a potential clash at the Supreme Court over whether shield laws and interstate telehealth services can coexist with states' bans and restrictions. The cases are in early stages and will proceed through federal filings and briefing; attorneys have identified the Full Faith and Credit Clause and related constitutional doctrines as central legal issues.
No court ruling was reported at the time of filing, and officials representing the shield-law states and the named telehealth providers have made public statements defending their statutes and practices in other forums.
