U.S. Supreme Court

A flood of litigation — with plaintiffs like small businesses, drugmakers, and hospitals challenging regulations — could leave the country with a patchwork of disparate health regulations.

Health and legal experts say the ruling by a deeply divided court does nothing to protect pregnant women in other states with strict abortion bans, and could prompt those states to push back more on the federal law.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that the multibillion opioid settlement inappropriately protected the Sackler family.

The court agreed to decide whether a Tennessee law restricting puberty blockers and hormone therapy for children is unconstitutional, in a closely watched case that is almost certain to affect similar laws in Florida.

The justices denied the challenge for technical reasons, and didn't address the merits of FDA drug approvals. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion even provided a road map for people with sincere objections.

The high court threw out a challenge to the FDA's rules on the abortion drug. A recently enacted Florida law permits use of the pill up to six weeks of gestation, but the medication must be taken in front of a doctor.

At issue in the case is more than abortion rights. It's the entire structure of the FDA's regulatory power to approve drugs and continually evaluate their safety.

These cases raise a critical question for the First Amendment and the future of social media: whether states can force the platforms to carry content they find hateful or objectionable.

Idaho's "Defense of Life Act" would would make it a crime for "every person who performs or attempts to perform an abortion," even when the woman's health is greatly endangered.

The court's action sets up a collision between the Food and Drug Administration's 23-year study and supervision of mifepristone, and the circumstances under which it can be prescribed.