3 pro-life states sue California, New York, Massachusetts in Supreme Court over abortion ‘shield laws’

Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down abortion “shield laws” in California, New York, and Massachusetts, arguing that the states’ laws prevent them from holding out-of-state abortion providers accountable for violating their pro-life protections.

The attorneys general announced the challenge Sept. 30, accusing the three states of protecting providers who prescribe and mail abortion drugs to patients in states where abortion is illegal. 

Shield laws protect providers from certain out-of-state investigations, prosecutions, and civil lawsuits involving abortion services permitted that the providers’ home states permit. The challenged protections include restrictions on cooperation with law enforcement, extradition, and enforcement of out-of-state judgments. The pro-life states argue that those measures allow providers to facilitate abortions within their borders while avoiding legal consequences.

National Right to Life said in an article about the case that the pro-abortion states “didn’t even try to hide their motives” in implementing the laws to evade other states’ pro-life laws after Dobbs overturned Roe v. Wade. The pro-life group pointed to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, who said at a 2023 signing ceremony for legislation extending the state’s shield laws that “they can’t stop us — they can’t stop our providers, they can’t stop New York, and that’s how we’re fighting back.”

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, a Republican, said in a statement announcing the suit that her state “has made its position on abortion clear through the bipartisan will of the people’s representatives in its Legislature.” 

“Louisiana chooses life,” she added. “We will not allow activist states, activist providers, or distributors profiting from killing babies to threaten Louisiana’s sovereignty, violate Louisiana law, or endanger Louisiana women and babies.”

Chemical abortion now accounts for at least 3 in 5 abortions in the U.S., and the Guttmacher Institute estimates that clinicians operating under shield laws provided about 91,000 telehealth abortions to residents of states with total abortion bans in 2025. 

The states’ Supreme Court filing asks the justices to hear the case directly under the court's original jurisdiction over disputes between states. The proposed complaint seeks a ruling declaring the shield laws unlawful and an order preventing officials from enforcing them. 

The challenge invokes the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which governs recognition of other states’ public acts, records, and court judgments. It also raises claims involving equal state sovereignty, the federal common law of public nuisance, and constitutional limits on state regulation of interstate commerce.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, opposed the challenge, arguing that the states were seeking to impose abortion bans on New York and punish doctors for providing health care that’s legal there. 

“New York has always been a safe haven for reproductive freedom. It was true before Roe, it has been true since Dobbs, and it will remain true long after this lawsuit inevitably fails,” James said in a Sept. 30 press release. “I will fight with everything in my power to defend our shield law and protect every provider and patient who depends on it.”

In a separate lawsuit filed Sept. 30 in the Western District of Louisiana, the three pro-life states accused 30 individuals and organizations of unlawfully advertising, prescribing, dispensing, and shipping abortion drugs to their residents.

The states allege that the defendants made false or misleading claims about the drugs’ safety, effectiveness, legality, and risks, including by minimizing potential harms caused by the drug and the need for in-person medical care. They are seeking an order that would stop the alleged conduct, along with damages and civil penalties.