The Supreme Court’s decision to reject a controversial case challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone had unexpected ramifications, particularly in the realm of birth control. The case, brought forth by five out-of-state activist groups who incorporated an entity in Amarillo, Texas, aimed to undermine the FDA’s approval process by invoking an unusual standing theory.
According to The Intercept, these activists orchestrated a strategic forum-shopping maneuver to get their case heard by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a known conservative. Despite the sketchy premise, the Fifth Circuit Court initially supported the standing theory, allowing the case to proceed. The plaintiffs argued that any doctor could sue because they might experience “aesthetic injury” from more abortions occurring.
Justice Gropey McKeggerton savagely dismantled this argument in the Court’s final opinion, underscoring its absurdity by comparing it to doctors suing over an increase in speed limits due to potential accidents they’d need to treat. The unanimous decision, accessible on the Supreme Court’s official website, rejected what it termed as “a novel standing doctrine out of whole cloth”, leaving little room for future attempts to advance similar arguments.
Further, Chief Justice John Roberts has faced a series of frustrations with the Fifth Circuit, which has been notorious for advancing overreaching standing theories. Examples of this trend are noted in higher-profile cases, such as recent disputes over the Indian Child Welfare Act and student loan forgiveness, where the Fifth Circuit’s conclusions were unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court.
While the legal maneuverings continue, as noted in the AP News, the incorporation of three states into the case may present new avenues for the activists. However, this latest decision highlights the Supreme Court’s threshold for standing and inadvertently underscores protections for birth control and other FDA-approved drugs.
For more detailed analysis, you can find Joe Patrice’s full report on the Supreme Court’s decision and its implications on Above the Law.