Supreme Court wrestles with who can sue over FDA’s mifepristone rules and the proper scope of relief

Summary

At oral argument in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the government urged the court to dismiss on Article III standing grounds as speculative; challengers said named hospitalists and advocacy groups have concrete harms tied to FDA’s 2016 and 2021 changes. Justices pressed both sides on traceability and whether narrow remedies could address conscience claims.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in a high‑stakes challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 and 2021 changes to the conditions for using mifepristone, focusing heavily on whether the plaintiffs have Article III standing and on the scope of any judicial remedy. The government told the court that respondents lack standing because their theory depends on an attenuated chain of contingencies and “only an exceptionally small number” of patients suffer complications that could plausibly reach the doctors who say they would be harmed.

Why it matters: The threshold question of standing determines whether a court may evaluate the legality of agency decisions. If the court accepts the government’s argument that the asserted injuries are speculative and not traceable to FDA’s incremental changes, it could block review of similar challenges and limit…

Supreme Court wrestles with who can sue over FDA’s mifepristone rules and the proper scope of relief

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading