Enlarge / The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 19, 2023. Democrats oppose the Republican-led Congressional Review Act resolution to disapprove of the Department of Veteran Affairs' interim rule on reproductive health care. Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images (credit: Getty | Al Drago )

Supreme Court on Friday issued an order that will maintain status quo access to the abortion and miscarriage drug mifepristone as the legal battle over the Food and Drug Administration's approval and regulation of the drug continues. The court did not explain its reasoning, but noted that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

The ruling overrides an order from the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, which would have curtailed access to the drug as the federal government pursues an appeal of a district court ruling. That ruling, issued by conservative District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk on April 7, would have revoked access to the drug entirely, finding the FDA's 2000 approval of mifepristone was unlawful, as was the agency's subsequent actions.

A three-judge panel for the appeals court, however, determined that the plaintiff's in the case—a group of anti-abortion organizations and individuals, led by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine—had exceeded the statute of limitations in which they could have legally challenged the FDA's 2000 approval. But, the judges ruled in a 2-1 decision to allow the rest of Kacsmaryk's ruling, revoking the FDA's actions in 2016 and 2021, which eased restrictions and access to the drug.

Enlarge / Demonstrators rally in support of abortion rights at the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on April 15, 2023. (credit: Getty | NDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS )

The US Supreme Court may soon issue a ruling in a high-stakes case that will determine not only the national availability of the safe and effective abortion and miscarriage medication mifepristone but also the fate of the Food and Drug Administration's overall authority to regulate the country's drugs.

In case you haven't been following along, here's everything you need to know before the high court makes its next move.

The case: Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA

The case began last November in a federal court in Texas when a group of anti-abortion organizations (led by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine) filed a lawsuit against the FDA, claiming that the regulator's approval and regulation of mifepristone was unlawful. As expected, District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a preliminary injunction on April 7 revoking the FDA's 2000 approval and ruled that the FDA's actions between 2016 and 2021, which included easing restrictions on the drug's use and access, were also unlawful. Kacsmaryk granted a seven-day stay of the order, allowing time for the government to appeal the ruling and seek a longer freeze. Without intervention, mifepristone could have been wrenched from the market nationwide on April 15.

Enlarge / Abortion rights advocates rally outside the US Supreme Court on April 14, 2023, in Washington, DC, speaking out against abortion pill restrictions. (credit: Getty | OLIVIER DOULIERY )

The Supreme Court on Friday temporarily blocked a lower court's ruling that would have curtailed access to the abortion medication mifepristone beginning on Saturday. The temporary block will preserve the status quo access to mifepristone for five days, or until midnight on Wednesday, giving the high court time to review emergency appeals and consider issuing a longer stay on the ruling.

The freeze is the latest turn in a fast-moving, high-stakes case over not only access to the safe and effective abortion medication but also the fate of the Food and Drug Administration's overall authority to regulate drugs in the country.

Last week, a federal judge in Texas, District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, issued a ruling revoking the FDA's nearly 23-year-old approval of mifepristone. Kacsmaryk, a conservative Donald Trump appointee, ruled that the FDA erred in approving the drug and that there was insufficient data on its safety, despite dozens of studies, decades of real-world data on millions of pregnancies, and extensive reviews from the regulatory agency.

Enlarge / Attorney Eric Schnapper speaks to reporters outside of the US Supreme Court following oral arguments for the case Twitter v. Taamneh on February 22, 2023, in Washington, DC. (credit: Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images North America )

Today it was Twitter’s turn to argue before the Supreme Court in another case this week that experts fear could end up weakening Section 230 protections for social networks hosting third-party content. In Twitter v. Taamneh , the Supreme Court must decide if under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorists Act (JASTA), online platforms should be held liable for aiding and abetting terrorist organizations that are known to be using their services to recruit fighters and plan attacks.

After close to three hours of arguments, justices still appear divided on how to address the complicated question, and Twitter's defense was not as strong as some justices seemingly thought it could be.

Twitter attorney Seth Waxman argued that the social network and other defendants, Google and Meta, should not be liable under JASTA, partly because the act of providing the same general services—which anyone on their platforms can access—does not alone constitute providing substantial assistance to an individual planning a terrorist attack.

Enlarge / Jose Hernandez and Beatriz Gonzalez, stepfather and mother of Nohemi Gonzalez, who died in a terrorist attack in Paris in 2015, arrive to speak to the press outside of the US Supreme Court following oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google on February 21 in Washington, DC. (credit: Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images News )

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments to decide whether Section 230 immunity shields online platforms from liabilities when relying on algorithms to make targeted recommendations. Many Section 230 defenders feared that the court might be eager to chip away at the statute’s protections, terrified that in the worst-case scenario, the Supreme Court could doom the Internet as we know it. However, it became clear that justices had grown increasingly concerned about the potential large-scale economic impact of making any decision that could lead to a crash of the digital economy or an avalanche of lawsuits over targeted recommendations.

The case before the court, Gonzalez v. Google , asks specifically whether Google should be held liable for allegedly violating federal law that prohibits aiding and abetting a terrorist organization by making targeted recommendations that promoted ISIS videos to YouTube users. If the court decides that Section 230 immunity does not apply, that single decision could impact how all online platforms recommend and organize content, Google and many others have argued.

“Congress was clear that Section 230 protects the ability of online services to organize content,” Halimah DeLaine Prado, Google's general counsel, told Ars in a statement. “Eroding these protections would fundamentally change how the Internet works, making it less open, less safe, and less helpful.”

Enlarge (credit: SOPA Images / Contributor | LightRocket )

Over the past few days, dozens of tech companies have filed briefs in support of Google in a Supreme Court case that tests online platforms’ liability for recommending content . Obvious stakeholders like Meta and Twitter, alongside popular platforms like Craigslist, Etsy, Wikipedia, Roblox, and Tripadvisor, urged the court to uphold Section 230 immunity in the case or risk muddying the paths users rely on to connect with each other and discover information online.

Out of all these briefs, however, Reddit’s was perhaps the most persuasive . The platform argued on behalf of everyday Internet users, whom it claims could be buried in “frivolous” lawsuits for frequenting Reddit, if Section 230 is weakened by the court. Unlike other companies that hire content moderators, the content that Reddit displays is “primarily driven by humans—not by centralized algorithms.” Because of this, Reddit’s brief paints a picture of trolls suing not major social media companies, but individuals who get no compensation for their work recommending content in communities. That legal threat extends to both volunteer content moderators, Reddit argued, as well as more casual users who collect Reddit “karma” by upvoting and downvoting posts to help surface the most engaging content in their communities.

“Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act famously protects Internet platforms from liability, yet what’s missing from the discussion is that it crucially protects Internet users—everyday people—when they participate in moderation like removing unwanted content from their communities, or users upvoting and downvoting posts,” a Reddit spokesperson told Ars.

Enlarge (credit: NurPhoto / Contributor | NurPhoto )

A key protection shielding social media companies from liability for hosting third-party content—Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—is set to face its first US Supreme Court challenge.

The question before the court hinges on whether Google-owned YouTube is responsible for aiding and abetting ISIS terrorists by actively recommending ISIS videos to users via its algorithms.

According to plaintiffs , ISIS allegedly relied on YouTube during efforts to ramp up recruitment before the terrorist group took credit for killing 130 people and injuring more than 350 others during six coordinated attacks in 2015. The lawsuit now headed to the Supreme Court focuses on the killing of an American woman named Nohemi Gonzalez, who was dining in a Paris bistro when ISIS militants attacked.