For those who didn't read the decision, it was rejected on the basis of lack of standing — i.e., the plaintiffs were not able to demonstrate how they were harmed and thus couldn't bring suit.
It's entirely possible that a different group of plaintiffs would be able to demonstrate real harm, in which case SCOTUS could potentially rule on the merits of the case.
Scotus rejects a lot of cases due to standing. Sometimes it takes arguments from all parties for that conclusion to be met.
People (and the press) regularly misinterpret what a scotus ruling means because they don't dive into the technicalities of why the court does what it does.
True, but it appears unlikely based on the decision:
"The plaintiffs do not allege the kinds of injuries described above that unregulated parties sometimes can assert to demonstrate causation. Because the plaintiffs do not prescribe, manufacture, sell, or advertise mifepristone or sponsor a competing drug, the plaintiffs suffer no direct monetary injuries from FDA's actions relaxing regulation of mifepristone. Nor do they suffer injuries to their property, or to the value of their property, from FDA's actions. Because the plaintiffs do not use mifepristone, they obviously can suffer no physical injuries from FDA's actions relaxing regulation of mifepristone.
Rather, the plaintiffs say that they are pro-life, oppose elective abortion, and have sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to mifepristone being prescribed and used by others. The plaintiffs appear to recognize that those general legal, moral, ideological, and policy concerns do not suffice on their own to confer Article III standing to sue in federal court. So to try to establish standing, the plaintiffs advance several complicated causation theories to connect FDA's actions to the plaintiffs' alleged injuries in fact."
Since no one is required to prescribe mifepristone, it's hard to see how any other group would have standing.
Finding a harmed group as such willing to go forward would likely be a needle-in-a-haystack case.
There's some -edge- cases but you'd have to really fish to prove that such harm is out of line of what risk was suggested in trials/etc, and even then what group of -that- population is really wanting to be made into a political football?
8 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 31.0 ms ] threadIt's entirely possible that a different group of plaintiffs would be able to demonstrate real harm, in which case SCOTUS could potentially rule on the merits of the case.
And Idaho, Kentucky, Kansas were all waiting on this to fail to launch their own court cases with different plans to address standing.
People (and the press) regularly misinterpret what a scotus ruling means because they don't dive into the technicalities of why the court does what it does.
"The plaintiffs do not allege the kinds of injuries described above that unregulated parties sometimes can assert to demonstrate causation. Because the plaintiffs do not prescribe, manufacture, sell, or advertise mifepristone or sponsor a competing drug, the plaintiffs suffer no direct monetary injuries from FDA's actions relaxing regulation of mifepristone. Nor do they suffer injuries to their property, or to the value of their property, from FDA's actions. Because the plaintiffs do not use mifepristone, they obviously can suffer no physical injuries from FDA's actions relaxing regulation of mifepristone.
Rather, the plaintiffs say that they are pro-life, oppose elective abortion, and have sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to mifepristone being prescribed and used by others. The plaintiffs appear to recognize that those general legal, moral, ideological, and policy concerns do not suffice on their own to confer Article III standing to sue in federal court. So to try to establish standing, the plaintiffs advance several complicated causation theories to connect FDA's actions to the plaintiffs' alleged injuries in fact."
Since no one is required to prescribe mifepristone, it's hard to see how any other group would have standing.
There's some -edge- cases but you'd have to really fish to prove that such harm is out of line of what risk was suggested in trials/etc, and even then what group of -that- population is really wanting to be made into a political football?