FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (2024)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Anti-abortion medical groups challenged the FDA’s approval and regulation of mifepristone, a medication used in medication abortions. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the challengers lacked standing, meaning they had no legal right to sue because they were not directly injured by the FDA’s actions.

3) Why It Mattered
The decision preserved access to mifepristone by dismissing the challenge on procedural grounds. It sidestepped broader questions about the FDA’s authority but underscored limits on who can bring cases in federal court.

4) What It Provided or Took Away

• Provided: Continued nationwide access to mifepristone under existing FDA rules.
• Took Away: The ability of ideological groups without direct harm to use federal courts to challenge drug approvals.

5) Overreach or Proper Role?
The Court acted narrowly and properly, focusing on jurisdiction and standing rather than policy. Critics argue it dodged important substantive questions; supporters see it as judicial restraint.

6) Plain-English Impact Today
Mifepristone remains available. Only people or groups directly harmed can challenge FDA decisions in court, limiting politically motivated lawsuits.

• Abortion
• FDA
• Standing
• Administrative Law
• Healthcare