FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.
In FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the Supreme Court addressed whether plaintiffs had standing to challenge the FDA's regulatory actions regarding mifepristone. The FDA had approved mifepristone for terminating pregnancies and later relaxed certain restrictions. Plaintiffs, consisting of pro-life medical associations and doctors, sought to reverse these actions. The Court found that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, as they did not demonstrate a concrete injury directly caused by the FDA's actions.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.
The Court held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to challenge the FDA's regulation of mifepristone, as they failed to show a direct injury caused by the FDA's actions.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Due Process is relevant to FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
The case involves the procedural requirements for standing, which is a component of due process under Article III.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Article III standing is a 'bedrock constitutional requirement that this Court has applied to all manner of important disputes.'
-
Why Separation of Powers is relevant to FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
The case discusses the limits of judicial intervention in executive actions, reflecting the separation of powers between branches.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Standing is 'built on a single basic idea—the idea of separation of powers.'
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine that support the summary and concepts above.
Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge FDA's actions regarding the regulation of mifepristone.
Federal courts do not operate as an open forum for citizens 'to press general complaints about the way in which government goes about its business.'
An organization that has not suffered a concrete injury caused by a defendant's action cannot spend its way into standing simply by expending money to gather information and advocate against the defendant's action.