Supreme Court Rules Plaintiffs Lack Standing in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
The Supreme Court ruled that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine lacks Article III standing to challenge FDA mifepristone regulations, reversing lower court decisions and ensuring the drug's continued availability.
Published on March 28, 2025
On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine lacked Article III standing to challenge the FDA’s regulation of mifepristone. In its decision, the Court emphasized that a plaintiff must demonstrate a personal injury rather than just a general policy or ideological objection in order to have standing to sue. Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the Court, reiterated that the injury-in-fact and causation requirements are fundamental to the separation of powers.
This ruling reverses lower court decisions and solidifies mifepristone’s availability under current FDA regulations. While new legal challenges, including lawsuits in Texas by Republican-led states, continue to surface, this decision reinforces the principle that federal courts cannot entertain cases based solely on broad grievances regarding regulatory decisions. The ruling serves as an important precedent for future litigation concerning administrative actions and standing requirements.