Episode description

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

In this case, the court considered these issues:

1. Do respondents have Article III standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 and 2021 actions with respect to mifepristone’s approved conditions of use?

2. Were the FDA’s 2016 and 2021 approvals of mifepristone arbitrary and capricious?

3. Did the district court properly grant preliminary relief?

The case was decided on June 13, 2024.

The Supreme Court held that Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and other plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory actions regarding mifepristone. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the unanimous opinion of the Court.

The plaintiff doctors and medical associations, none of whom prescribe or use mifepristone, do not allege direct monetary injuries, property injuries, or physical injuries from FDA's actions relaxing the regulation of mifepristone. Rather, they have legal, moral, ideological, and policy concerns about abortion. While these concerns are legitimate, they do not suffice on their own to confer Article III standing to sue in federal court.

Given the broad and comprehensive conscience protections guaranteed by federal law, the plaintiffs have not shown that FDA's actions will cause them to suffer any conscience injury. Additionally, the causal link between FDA’s regulatory actions and the alleged monetary and related injuries (e.g., diverting resources, increased risk of liability suits, potentially increasing insurance costs) is too speculative or attenuated to establish standing. Finally, the medical associations have not demonstrated organizational standing. Thus, even if true that no one would be able to challenge FDA’s actions if the plaintiffs cannot, the Court has long rejected this “if not us, who?" argument as a basis for standing.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion reiterating that associational (or organizational) standing is simply another form of third-party standing and that the Court should, in another case, explain just how the Constitution permits associational standing.

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.