Three Republican-led states asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 1 to invalidate abortion “shield laws” that protect abortion providers in three Democrat-led states.

Attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana argue that shield laws in California, Massachusetts, and New York undercut their abortion bans and their authority to enforce them. Federal rules allow abortion pills to be prescribed by telehealth and delivered by mail. The three states want to keep the drugs out of their states and punish out-of-state providers who send them in.

Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana ban abortion at every stage of pregnancy, although each allows a narrow exception when the procedure is deemed necessary to save the patient’s life or prevent a serious health risk. None provides a general exception for rape or incest. Louisiana regulates the abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled substances.

University of California–Davis law professor Mary Ziegler, who has written seven books on abortion law and history, told The Associated Press, “This is the first time we’ve seen a state or group of states suing other states to challenge the validity of shield laws.”

The filing in the case, which is known as Louisiana v. New York, took the form of a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint.

The U.S. Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over disputes between states, or the authority to hear such disputes as a court of first impression.

In such cases, the court often appoints a judicial officer, a special master, to hear the case and issue a recommendation to the justices on how to rule. A state that wishes to sue another state must seek approval from the court before being allowed to proceed.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said that the shield laws adopted by New York, California, and Massachusetts after the Supreme Court returned the regulation of abortion to the states in 2022 “violate the Constitution and federal law by promoting and facilitating the distribution of thousands of illegal abortion drugs through the mail and preventing pro-life states from enforcing their own laws.”

Those states also sought ways “to nullify the sovereign rights of pro-life states” by creating shield law policies that limit extradition and cooperation with out-of-state law enforcement, and block enforcement of some subpoenas and out-of-state judgments, Murrill said in a statement.

The shield laws allow people to “violate pro-life states’ laws with impunity and no fear of negative repercussions,” she wrote.

In the motion, Murrill argued that the shield laws violate various constitutional provisions, including the full faith and credit clause, which requires each state to fully recognize the “public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings” of every other state.

“'Shield laws’ are not shields at all—they are swords disguised as shields and driven into pro-life states,” she wrote.

The three states say their abortion laws are being circumvented by mailed pills, which they estimate account for approximately 1,000 abortions per month in Louisiana, 700 in Alabama, and 300 in Arkansas, according to the motion.

Officials in California, Massachusetts, and New York say their shield laws protect doctors who are practicing lawfully inside their own states.

When New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed her state’s shield law in 2023, she said its purpose was “to protect New Yorkers who prescribe and send abortion pills to patients in states where abortion is outlawed.”

“Extremist lawmakers in other states can stop their health care providers from supplying abortion pills,” Hochul said. “But 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.”

It is unclear when the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to take up the case.