A majority of the justices voted to dismiss the case, reinstating a lower-court ruling that paused the state’s near-total abortion ban. The ruling mirrored a version inadvertently posted a day earlier.The Supreme Court said on Thursday that it would dismiss a case about emergency abortions in Idaho, temporarily clearing the way for women in the state to receive an abortion when their health is at risk.The one-sentence, unsigned decision declared that the case had been “improvidently granted,” meaning a majority of the justices had changed their minds about the need to take up the case now. It reinstates a lower-court ruling that had halted Idaho’s near-total ban on abortion and permitted emergency abortions at hospitals if needed to protect the health of the mother while the case makes its way through the courts.The decision, which did not rule on the substance of the case, closely mirrored a version that appeared briefly on the court’s website a day earlier and was reported by Bloomberg. A court spokeswoman acknowledged on Wednesday that the publications unit had “inadvertently and briefly uploaded a document” and said a ruling in the case would appear in due time.Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. announced the court’s decision from the bench, as is the custom for unsigned opinions.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who in part disagreed with the court’s decision and asserted that the justices should have addressed the case on its merits, read her dissent from the bench. Such a move is rare and signals profound disagreement.The joined cases, Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States, focus on whether a federal law aimed at ensuring emergency care for any patient supersedes Idaho’s abortion ban, one of the nation’s strictest. The state outlaws the procedure with few exceptions unless a woman’s life is in danger.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

The liability shield would have protected members of the Sackler family from civil claims related to the opioid epidemic.The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a provision at the heart of a multibillion-dollar settlement with Purdue Pharma that would have channeled billions of dollars to help curb the opioid epidemic in exchange for shielding members of the wealthy Sackler family from related lawsuits.In a 5-to-4 decision, written by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a majority of the justices held that the federal bankruptcy code does not authorize a liability shield for third parties in bankruptcy agreements. Justice Gorsuch was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson.In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote that the “decision is wrong on the law and devastating for more than 100,000 opioid victims and their families.” He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The decision jeopardizes a carefully negotiated settlement Purdue and the Sacklers had reached in which members of the family promised to give up to $6 billion to states, local governments, tribes and individuals to address a devastating public health crisis.It all but ensures that members of the Sackler family, who controlled Purdue Pharma, the maker of the prescription painkiller OxyContin, will no longer be subject to a condition of the deal that had generated significant criticism: immunity from liability in opioid-related lawsuits, even as they had not declared bankruptcy.The U.S. Trustee Program, a watchdog office in the Justice Department, had asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The liability shield, which binds potential claimants without their consent and offers wide-ranging legal protection for the Sacklers, was a misuse of a bankruptcy system aimed at addressing “true financial distress, the office said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

According to Bloomberg News, a document posted briefly to the court’s website suggested a majority of the justices would reinstate a lower-court ruling that paused the state’s near-total abortion ban.The Supreme Court seems poised to temporarily allow emergency abortions in Idaho when a woman’s health is at risk, according to a copy of what appeared to be the opinion that showed up briefly on the court’s website on Wednesday.The unsigned opinion dismissed the case on procedural grounds, stating that the court, for now, would not address the merits of the dispute, according to the 22-page document, which was published by Bloomberg News. Such a decision would reinstate a ruling by a lower federal court that had paused Idaho’s near-total ban on abortion and said hospitals in the state could perform emergency abortions if necessary to protect the health of the mother.The case centers on whether a federal law requiring emergency care for any patient overrides Idaho’s strict abortion ban, which outlaws the procedure with few exceptions unless the woman’s life is in danger.It was unclear whether the document was final, and a spokeswoman for the court said only that a decision in the joined cases, Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States, would eventually be released.“The court’s publications unit inadvertently and briefly uploaded a document to the court’s website,” said the spokeswoman, Patricia McCabe. “The court’s opinion in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States will be issued in due course.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

The justices announced that they would hear a case challenging a federal agency’s approval of the commonly used pill.The Supreme Court announced on Wednesday that it would decide on the availability of a commonly used abortion pill, the first major case involving abortion on its docket since it overturned the constitutional right to an abortion more than a year ago.The move sets up a high-stakes fight over the drug, mifepristone, that could sharply curtail access to medication that is used in more than half of all pregnancy terminations in the United States. It could also have implications for the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration, which approved the pill more than two decades ago.The Supreme Court is now in the unusual position of ruling on abortion access even after its conservative majority declared that it would leave that question to the states. Until it issues a decision, the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the drug remains in place, delaying the potential for an abrupt end to the medication.The justices had been slated to discuss the case at their Friday conference, the private meeting among the nine.The Biden administration had asked the Supreme Court to hear the case after a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision that would curb the availability of the drug. The three-judge panel said that the pill would remain legal but with significant restrictions on patients’ access.In its appeal, lawyers for the Justice Department described the ruling by the appeals court as unprecedented in questioning the expert judgment of the F.D.A. Such a decision, they added, “would threaten to severely disrupt the pharmaceutical industry and prevent F.D.A. from fulfilling its statutory responsibilities according to its scientific judgment.”Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal advocacy organization that has brought cases for clients opposed to abortion and gay and transgender rights, represents the challengers. In a brief, lawyers for the group argued that the court had “no compelling reason” to weigh in, pushing for legal proceedings to unfold in the trial court to “allow the parties to develop a full record.”

A federal appeals court had signed off on the agreement, which would shield members of the wealthy Sackler family from opioid-related lawsuits in exchange for $6 billion for victims.The Supreme Court agreed on Thursday to consider the government’s challenge of a bankruptcy settlement involving Purdue Pharma, putting on pause a deal that would have shielded members of the wealthy Sackler family from civil opioid lawsuits in exchange for payments of up to $6 billion to thousands of plaintiffs.In doing so, the court sided with the Justice Department, which had requested the court put the settlement plan on hold while it considered reviewing the agreement. The government has argued that the family behind Purdue Pharma, maker of the prescription painkiller OxyContin, should not be able to take advantage of legal protections meant for debtors in “financial distress.”The court’s order, which was unsigned, gave no reasons and included no public dissents, adds to the uncertainty around the plan to compensate states, local governments, tribes and individuals harmed by the opioid crisis while offering protection for the Sackler family. The order specified that the justices would hear arguments in the case in December.The court’s decision to take up the challenge to the bankruptcy agreement is the latest twist in the yearslong legal battle over compensation for victims of the prescription drug crisis.In May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit approved the settlement plan as part of a court review of bankruptcy restructuring for Purdue Pharma. The company had filed for bankruptcy protections in September 2019. At the time, both the company and members of the Sackler family were facing lawsuits connected with the opioid crisis.Although it is routine for companies who seek bankruptcy protection to be shielded from legal claims, the unusual part of this agreement was that it extended that liability protection to the company’s owners. Sackler family members have said they would not sign onto a settlement without an agreement protecting them from lawsuits.The U.S. Trustee Program, an office in the Justice Department that oversees the administration of bankruptcy cases, has long argued that bankruptcy judges do not have the power to permanently block lawsuits against company owners if those owners haven’t sought personal bankruptcy protection.The government has argued that federal appeals courts are split on this issue and that the settlement agreement may set a troubling precedent.“Allowing the court of appeals’ decision to stand would leave in place a road map for wealthy corporations and individuals to misuse the bankruptcy system to avoid mass tort liability,” the solicitor general, Elizabeth B. Prelogar, wrote in a brief for the government.The appeals court, Ms. Prelogar wrote, had “pinned itself firmly on one side of a widely acknowledged circuit split about an important and recurring question of bankruptcy law.”Ms. Prelogar called the agreement “a release from liability that is of exceptional and unprecedented breadth.” She argued that the deal “applies to an untold number of claimants who did not specifically consent to the release’s terms,” a deal that “constitutes an abuse of the bankruptcy system, and raises serious constitutional questions.”In a statement released after Thursday’s decision, a spokeswoman for Purdue Pharma said the company was “confident in the legality” of the bankruptcy plan. Members of the Sackler family are no longer on the board of the pharmaceutical company. When the bankruptcy is finalized, they will no longer be owners of the company, which would be renamed Knoa Pharma and owned by its creditors. However, the family still remains wealthy. Some estimates put their fortune at $11 billion, much of it in offshore holdings.Victims’ groups have expressed frustration at the government’s position, raising concerns that it would further delay payments to those harmed.“Regardless of how one feels about the role of the Sackler family in the creation and escalation of the opioid crisis, the fact remains that the billions of dollars in abatement and victim compensation funds hinge on confirmation and consummation of the existing plan,” a brief filed on behalf of a victims’ group said. “These funds, which the Sackler family members are providing in exchange for releases, are critically needed now.”Jan Hoffman

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Friday evening that the abortion pill mifepristone would remain widely available for now, delaying the potential for an abrupt end to a drug that is used in more than half of abortions in the United States.The order halted steps that had sought to curb the availability of mifepristone as an appeal moves forward: a ruling from a federal judge in Texas to suspend the drug from the market entirely and another from an appeals court to impose significant barriers on the pill, including blocking access by mail.The unsigned, one-paragraph order, which came hours before restrictions were set to take effect, marked the second time in a year that the Supreme Court had considered a major effort to sharply curtail access to abortion.The case could ultimately have profound implications, even for states where abortion is legal, as well as for the F.D.A.’s regulatory authority over other drugs.If the ruling by the judge in Texas, which revoked the F.D.A.’s approval of the pill after more than two decades, were to stand, it could pave the way for all sorts of challenges to the agency’s approval of other medications and enable medical providers anywhere to contest government policy that might affect a patient.The Biden administration had asked the Supreme Court to intervene after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit let stand a number of restrictions in the Texas ruling, even as it said it would allow the pill to remain on the market.In Friday’s order, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.Justice Thomas gave no reasons, but Justice Alito noted that the Fifth Circuit had already narrowed the most far-reaching aspects of the Texas ruling. The F.D.A. and the manufacturer of the branded version of mifepristone, Danco Laboratories, had “not shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm” as the case proceeds through the appeals court, he added.Justice Alito expressed skepticism of the F.D.A.’s claims that “regulatory ‘chaos’” would ensue if the lower court ruling went into effect. In a nod to a competing case filed by Democratic state attorneys general in Washington State, which is seen as a direct challenge to the case in Texas, he accused the F.D.A. of leveraging the court system to carry out “a desired policy while evading both necessary agency procedures and judicial review.”This is most likely not the final word from the justices. After the Fifth Circuit hears the appeal, the matter is likely to make its way back to the Supreme Court.None of the justices appointed by President Donald J. Trump publicly dissented.The court’s decision is, at least temporarily, a victory for the Biden administration.President Biden welcomed the decision, saying the “administration will continue to defend F.D.A.’s independent, expert authority to review, approve and regulate a wide range of prescription drugs.”The Texas ruling, he added, “would have undermined F.D.A.’s medical judgment and put women’s health at risk.”A spokesman for the F.D.A. declined to comment.The reaction from the plaintiffs — a coalition of anti-abortion groups and several doctors — was muted.Erik Baptist, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that represents the coalition, said the battle would continue.“The F.D.A. must answer for the damage it has caused to the health of countless women and girls and the rule of law by failing to study how dangerous the chemical abortion drug regimen is and unlawfully removing every meaningful safeguard, even allowing for mail-order abortions,” Mr. Baptist said. After the Supreme Court eliminated a constitutional right to an abortion in June, political and legal battles shifted to medication abortion, a two-drug regimen that is typically used in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.The first drug, mifepristone, blocks the reproductive hormone progesterone, and the second, misoprostol, taken one or two days later, prompts contractions and helps the uterus expel its contents.More than five million women have used mifepristone to terminate their pregnancies in the United States, and dozens of other countries have approved the drug for use.The case reached the justices after a swift-moving and tangled fight over the pill’s legal status.In November, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Amarillo division of the federal court system in Texas, guaranteeing that the case would come before a single judge: Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.Judge Kacsmaryk, an appointee of Mr. Trump, is a longtime opponent of abortion and joined the bench after working at First Liberty Institute, a conservative legal group that focuses on issues of religious liberty.The coalition that brought the suit, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, argued that the F.D.A. had improperly approved the pill in 2000 and that mifepristone is unsafe. The agency has strongly disputed those claims, pointing to studies that show that serious complications are rare and that less than 1 percent of patients need hospitalization.This month, Judge Kacsmaryk, in a temporary ruling, declared invalid the F.D.A.’s approval of the drug and gave both parties a week to seek emergency relief before the decision took effect.Less than an hour later, a federal judge in Washington State, Thomas O. Rice, an appointee of President Barack Obama, issued a contradictory ruling in a separate lawsuit over mifepristone. Judge Rice blocked the F.D.A. from limiting the availability of the pill in 17 states and the District of Columbia, which were parties in that suit.The competing rulings meant that the matter was almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court.The F.D.A. immediately appealed Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision, and a divided three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, upheld the agency’s approval of the drug, ensuring that mifepristone would remain on the market.But the panel imposed several barriers to access, siding in part with Judge Kacsmaryk, while the lawsuit moved through the courts. It blocked a series of steps the F.D.A. had taken since 2016 to increase the availability and distribution of the drug, such as allowing it to be sent by mail and to be prescribed by medical providers who are not doctors.Adam Liptak