FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
Case Overview
In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that a group of anti-abortion doctors lacked standing to challenge the FDA's approval of mifepristone — the medication used in the majority of U.S. abortions — because they couldn't show any personal injury from its approval or use. The unanimous decision made it as much a case about access to courts as about abortion: disagreeing with a policy isn't enough to sue over it; you have to show the policy actually harmed you specifically. Bryan covers it as a standing case, and a reminder that 9-0 opinions are rare enough to mean something — when every justice agrees, the legal question is clean.
Legal Issues
BrynoDC Coverage 2 videos
The Conclusion
**Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine demonstrates standing doctrine's clarity: the Supreme Court unanimously held that plaintiffs must demonstrate concrete injury, not policy disagreement.** Anti-abortion physicians challenging the FDA's mifepristone approval failed to show they were personally harmed. The 9-0 decision illustrated how settled this constitutional gate-keeping principle remains.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support