by WomenLawyersOnGuard | Jul 28, 2026 | Amicus Briefs
Can states heavily restrict access to mifepristone, the most common drug used in medication abortions, by challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) scientific determinations about mifepristone’s safety? In Louisiana v. Food and Drug Administration, the Fifth Circuit is considering whether Louisiana and several other states have standing to sue the FDA to challenge its existing requirements that allow mifepristone to be mailed to patients from telehealth providers and certified pharmacies. After the district court paused the case pending a review of mifepristone by FDA, Louisiana appealed and won a ruling in the Fifth Circuit, effectively blocking the ability to get mifepristone by telemedicine and mail. The Supreme Court granted a stay sought by the manufacturers of mifepristone, allowing the medication to be provided by telehealth and mail to patients while litigation is ongoing.
Women Lawyers on Guard Inc. joined an amicus brief signed by over 150 organizations challenging the rationale behind Louisiana’s attempts to restrict access to mifepristone. The brief first argues that decades of research shows that mifepristone is safe and effective, even when it is not dispensed in person. Second, the brief argues that imposing medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone, such as the in-person dispensing requirements, not only unduly burdens women’s rights by forcing them to travel to distant healthcare facilities but also poses substantial risks for women’s health. As a result, women of color, low-income communities, and rural areas will be disproportionately affected.
As of July 2026, the litigation remains pending before the Fifth Circuit. The outcome of this case will carry profound implications for women’s health and access to medication abortions nationwide.
To read the amicus brief, please click here. For more information on Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food and Drug Administration, please click here.
by WomenLawyersOnGuard | Jul 28, 2026 | Amicus Briefs
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court evaluated whether a coalition of anti-abortion organizations could challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) approval of mifepristone and efforts to expand access to it. The FDA approved mifepristone in 2000 after extensive research and clinical studies showed mifepristone was safe and effective in medication abortions. The Fifth Circuit kept mifepristone on the market but imposed burdensome restrictions on access to it.
Women Lawyers on Guard Inc. joined an amicus brief prepared by over 230 advocacy organizations urging the Supreme Court to preserve access to mifepristone. The brief first explains that mifepristone’s well-documented safety record over the last twenty years supports FDA’s decision to approve it. Second, the brief asserts that re-imposing unduly harsh restrictions on access to mifepristone, the most common drug used for medication abortions, would carry profound consequences for women’s health and safety. As a result, women would be forced to either carry unwanted pregnancies to term or undergo procedural abortions, which carry substantially higher risks.
On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the case because the plaintiffs, a coalition of anti-abortion organizations, lacked standing. Since the Court did not rule on the merits, there are ongoing disputes regarding the availability of mifepristone. Currently, the Fifth Circuit in Food and Drug Administration v. Louisiana is deciding whether the FDA must reinstate in-person dispensing requirements. The FDA is also internally conducting a new review of mifepristone’s safety despite its long safety record.
To read the amicus brief, please click here. For more updates on Louisiana v. Food and Drug Administration, click here.
by WomenLawyersOnGuard | Jul 28, 2026 | Amicus Briefs
Can survivors of sexual misconduct bring a counterclaim against an individual harasser after being sued for defamation for reporting the misconduct? Sabatini v. Knouse arose after David Sabatini, a tenured MIT professor and former Director of Laboratory Research and Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (“Whitehead”), engaged in a sexually inappropriate relationship with his student, Kristin Knouse. After Whitehead determined that Sabatini violated its sexual harassment policy, he resigned and sued Knouse for defamation. Knouse then filed a counterclaim for sexual harassment but was barred from bringing her claim against Sabatini because he was an individual rather than an institution.
Women Lawyers on Guard Inc. signed an amicus brief arguing that allowing retaliatory defamation lawsuits to proceed against a survivor of sexual assault without permitting them to file a sexual harassment counterclaim would contribute to widespread underreporting and allow harassers to go unchecked. Furthermore, sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuits disproportionately impact women, particularly women of color. The brief also explains that enabling harassers to weaponize retaliatory defamation lawsuits to dissuade victims from reporting sexual abuse would leave survivors without appropriate legal recourse.
Initially, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the defendant and barred the plaintiff’s counterclaim. However, on May 19, 2026, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reversed in favor of the plaintiff, holding that survivors of sexual misconduct in academic settings can file lawsuits against individual harassers, not only institutions.
To read the amicus brief, please click here.
by WomenLawyersOnGuard | Jul 28, 2026 | Amicus Briefs
When a pregnant woman encounters a medical emergency, can states prohibit doctors from performing abortions that are necessary to protect the patient’s health, as required by federal law? On remand from the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit considered whether Idaho’s Defense of Life Act (the “DLA”), which banned all abortions except those necessary to prevent a pregnant woman’s death, was preempted by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (“EMTALA”). Congress created EMTALA to protect patients at Medicare-funded hospitals by requiring doctors to provide stabilizing care in medical emergencies, including abortions, regardless of the patient’s ability to pay for the treatment.
Women Lawyers on Guard Inc. joined an amicus brief arguing that EMTALA, a federal law, preempted Idaho’s statewide abortion ban. The brief explained that allowing Idaho to enforce the DLA would undermine Congress’s intent under EMTALA and jeopardize women’s access to lifesaving emergency care. It also emphasized that the law would impose insurmountable consequences on women, with a disproportionate impact on women of color, who already have an increased maternal morbidity and mortality rate.
On March 13, 2025, the Ninth Circuit dissolved the preliminary injunction barring Idaho from enforcing the DLA, marking a significant setback for women’s health.
To read the amicus brief, please click here.
by WomenLawyersOnGuard | Jul 28, 2026 | Amicus Briefs
Can employers continue to force survivors of workplace sexual misconduct into private arbitration despite the passage of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) in 2022? The EFAA was enacted to ensure that survivors of sexual misconduct could litigate their claims in court. However, in Newton v. LVMH Moët Hennessy, the Second Circuit is considering whether an employee’s retaliation and termination claims, which were brought after the EFAA was enacted, must nevertheless be subject to mandatory arbitration because they stem from misconduct that occurred before the EFAA was passed.
Women Lawyers on Guard Inc. signed an amicus brief to support the plaintiff, Andowah Newton, in her argument that the entirety of her claims fall under the protection of the EFAA even though the harassment began before the EFAA was enacted. The brief explains that the EFAA was passed to provide survivors of sexual abuse access to the courts rather than trapping their claims in confidential arbitration proceedings. It also argues that compelling survivors to arbitrate their claims undermines Congress’s intent, discourages the reporting of sexual misconduct, shields harassers from public accountability, and leaves survivors without appropriate legal recourse. It argues that the sexual harassment was a continuing violation of Ms. Newton’s rights and that the entire claim should therefore be litigated in court.
The Second Circuit heard oral argument on April 27, 2026, and as of July 2026, a decision is still pending.
To read the amicus brief, please click here.
