The question
Whether the plaintiff medical associations and doctors have Article III standing to challenge the FDA's approval and later deregulation of mifepristone.
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
What the Court decided
Reversed. The Court held the plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge the FDA's regulation of mifepristone. Because the plaintiffs do not prescribe or use the drug, they are unregulated parties challenging the government's regulation of others, and their causation theories do not connect the FDA's actions to any injury in fact. The Court did not reach the merits of the FDA's approval or deregulation decisions.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Kavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, Jackson
Delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court holding that the plaintiffs lack Article III standing. Standing requires an injury in fact caused by the defendant and redressable by the requested relief. Causation is ordinarily more difficult to establish when a plaintiff challenges the government's regulation of someone else. Because the plaintiffs do not prescribe or use mifepristone, they are unregulated parties, and their causation theories do not link the FDA's actions to their alleged injuries.
Concurring
Thomas, writing alone
Filed a concurring opinion. The syllabus records the concurrence but does not state its reasoning.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that the plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge the FDA's actions regarding the regulation of mifepristone.
Source: syllabus, Held
To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact, causation by the defendant, and redressability by the requested relief.
Source: syllabus, Held
Because the plaintiffs do not prescribe or use mifepristone, they are unregulated parties challenging the FDA's regulation of others, and causation is harder to establish in that posture.
Source: syllabus, Held
Kavanaugh delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, and Thomas filed a concurring opinion.
Source: syllabus, lineup
The case came from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Source: syllabus, lineup