The attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas and Louisiana filed a lawsuit Wednesday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down abortion “shield laws” in California, Massachusetts and New York. The Republican-led states argue those laws interfere with their ability to enforce abortion restrictions within their own borders.

The case centers on medication abortion, which can be prescribed through telehealth and sent by mail under federal rules. The three states seeking Supreme Court intervention want to prevent abortion pills from being sent into states where abortion is banned or heavily restricted and argue that providers should be subject to their laws even when operating from another state.

Shield laws were enacted by Democratic-led states after the Supreme Court's 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. California, Massachusetts and New York are among the states that have adopted protections designed to prevent state officials from assisting out-of-state investigations or prosecutions involving abortion providers who operate legally in their home states.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin argue the protections go beyond shielding providers and effectively allow abortion providers to circumvent the laws of states where abortion is prohibited. Murrill said Louisiana would not allow other states, providers or distributors to interfere with the state's abortion laws.

New York Attorney General Letitia James has defended her state's law, arguing that the three Republican-led states are attempting to extend their abortion restrictions into New York and punish doctors for providing care that is legal there. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell also said her office would defend the state's shield law and its authority to protect providers and residents.

The Supreme Court has authority to hear disputes directly between states, although such cases are uncommon. The lawsuit therefore presents the justices with an unusual interstate conflict over how far one state's laws can reach into another state's jurisdiction.

The three Republican attorneys general also filed a separate federal lawsuit against 30 abortion-pill providers and organizations. That case seeks to restrict providers accused of prescribing and sending abortion medication into states with abortion bans.

The legal battle comes as medication abortion remains a central issue in the post-Roe landscape. Thirteen states currently have near-total abortion bans, while other states have enacted laws protecting abortion access, creating increasingly sharp conflicts over providers who use telehealth to serve patients across state lines.

Louisiana has separately challenged the Food and Drug Administration's rules allowing mifepristone to be prescribed through telehealth and obtained by mail. The Supreme Court preserved access to the medication in May while that litigation continues, adding another layer to the broader fight over abortion pills.

The FDA has repeatedly determined that the medications are safe and effective, although the agency is reviewing its regulations. The Supreme Court's response to the new state-versus-state challenge could determine whether states with abortion bans can pursue providers in other states despite shield laws protecting them.