Three states are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Massachusetts’ abortion shield law. In a filing docketed as No. 22O165, Louisiana, Arkansas and Alabama sued Massachusetts, New York and California directly in the Supreme Court, calling the laws “swords disguised as shields and driven into pro-life states.” They want the Court to declare the laws unconstitutional and bar Massachusetts officials from enforcing them.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said she would “vigorously” defend the state’s law, WCVB reported. We read the 67-page filing and the Massachusetts statutes it targets. Here is what the case is, what it would do to Massachusetts law, and what happens next.
Why the case starts in the Supreme Court
Most lawsuits begin in a trial court. Lawsuits between states are different. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over them, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a) that jurisdiction is exclusive. But a state cannot simply file a complaint. It must first ask permission, by a “motion for leave to file a bill of complaint,” which is what the three states filed on September 30, 2026.
The Court often says no. Massachusetts has been on the winning end of that before: in 2021 the Court denied New Hampshire’s request to sue Massachusetts over Massachusetts taxing the income of New Hampshire residents working remotely, with Justices Thomas and Alito saying they would have granted it, according to the docket in No. 22O154. A similar 2024 request by Alabama and other states against California and other states, No. 22O158, drew a brief in opposition and a round of amicus filings before the Court acted.
What the states are asking for
The prayer for relief asks the Court to declare that the shield laws of New York, Massachusetts and California violate:
- the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, which requires states to respect each other’s public acts, records and judicial proceedings;
- the “equal-sovereignty doctrine,” citing Shelby County v. Holder;
- the federal common law of public nuisance; and
- the “dormant Commerce Clause.”
It also asks the Court to “enjoin officials in New York, Massachusetts, and California from enforcing their shield laws.” The complaint says the challenge to the gender-affirming care portion of the Massachusetts law is “outside the scope of this complaint.” On the same day, the three states filed a separate federal lawsuit in Louisiana, Louisiana v. Nouhavandi, No. 2:26-cv-3836 (W.D. La.), against individual prescribers and organizations.
What the Massachusetts shield law actually says
The core statute is G.L. c. 12, § 11I½, first enacted in 2022 and strengthened in 2025. We read it at malegislature.gov. Key parts:
- A protected activity. “Legally-protected health care activity” includes reproductive health care that is legal in Massachusetts. The statute says care provided “by a person duly licensed under the laws of the commonwealth and physically present in the commonwealth” is protected if it is permitted here, “regardless of the patient’s location.” That is the clause that covers a Massachusetts prescriber mailing pills to a patient in another state.
- Out-of-state bans are against public policy. Any foreign law that criminalizes or sanctions a person “in the commonwealth” who provides or aids access to that care “shall be an interference” with rights secured by Massachusetts law and “a violation of the public policy of the commonwealth.”
- A countersuit. If someone brings “abusive litigation” elsewhere based on protected activity in Massachusetts, the target can sue in Massachusetts for injunctive relief and damages, including the amount of any out-of-state judgment and attorney’s fees, within three years.
- Limits on extradition. Under G.L. c. 276, § 13, except as federal law requires, the governor “shall not surrender a person charged in another state as a result of engaging in legally-protected health care activity” unless the demanding state alleges in writing that the person was physically in that state at the time and then fled.
The complaint lists other provisions it says are part of the same scheme, including limits on cooperating with out-of-state investigations, on enforcing out-of-state judgments, on subpoenas, on professional discipline, and on releasing providers’ personal information. It also says an investigator for the plaintiff states could not get records by subpoena from companies including Google, AT&T and the payment platform Stripe, because they asked for the certification that Massachusetts and California law require.
The states’ main argument
The plaintiffs say Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) returned abortion to each state, and that shield laws let three states set abortion policy “for the entire Nation by overriding democratically enacted laws in pro-life states.” They cite a report that Louisiana sees about 1,000 abortions a month, Arkansas about 300 and Alabama about 700, all, they say, from out-of-state pills. The complaint quotes a media report that one Massachusetts group, the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project, sends “more than 6,000” packages a month. Those figures are the plaintiffs’ allegations, drawn from outside reports; no court has found them.
What Massachusetts will likely argue
Massachusetts has not filed its response yet. Its first filing will be a brief in opposition to the motion for leave, and the threshold issue is whether the Court should hear the case at all. Its arguments are not public, so we do not predict them here beyond the obvious: the Court’s original docket is discretionary in practice, and the 2021 New Hampshire case shows the Court will turn away a state’s request to sue Massachusetts.
What happens next
- Response deadline. Under Supreme Court Rule 17.5, a defendant state has no more than 60 days after receiving the motion and complaint to file any brief in opposition. Extensions are common; in the 2024 Alabama case, California got one.
- Amicus briefs. Under Rule 37, amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs’ motion are due within 60 days after the case is docketed, which here was October 2, 2026.
- The Court’s decision. After briefing, the Court decides at conference whether to grant leave. If it does, the case proceeds, often before a special master. If it denies leave, the case ends.
- Meanwhile, the law stays in effect. Nothing in the filing changes Massachusetts law today.
Frequently asked questions
Who is suing Massachusetts over its abortion shield law?
Louisiana, Arkansas and Alabama, in the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case docketed October 2, 2026 as No. 22O165, Louisiana v. New York. New York and California are also defendants.
Is the Massachusetts shield law still in effect?
Yes. The filing asks the Court for permission to sue and, eventually, for a declaration and injunction. The Supreme Court has not acted on it.
Can Massachusetts refuse to extradite a doctor charged in another state for prescribing abortion pills?
Under G.L. c. 276, section 13, except as federal law requires, the governor shall not surrender a person charged elsewhere for legally-protected health care activity unless the demanding state alleges in writing that the person was physically present there at the time and fled. The three states argue that this and related provisions are unconstitutional.
How long does Massachusetts have to respond?
Under Supreme Court Rule 17.5, no more than 60 days after receiving the motion and complaint, unless the Court extends the time.
Sources: Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint, Bill of Complaint and Brief in Support, Louisiana v. New York, No. 22O165 (U.S., docketed Oct. 2, 2026), read in full at supremecourt.gov; Supreme Court dockets in Nos. 22O154 and 22O158; Rules of the Supreme Court 17 and 37. G.L. c. 12, section 11I½ and G.L. c. 276, section 13, read at malegislature.gov; other Massachusetts provisions are described as cited in the complaint. WCVB, including Attorney General Campbell’s statement. Statistics are the plaintiff states’ allegations. General information about the law, not legal advice.