Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

24 

FDA v. ALLIANCE FOR HIPPOCRATIC MEDICINE 

Opinion of the Court 

is  not  clear  that  no  one  else  would  have  standing  to
challenge  FDA’s  relaxed  regulation  of  mifepristone.    But 
even  if  no  one  would  have  standing,  this  Court  has  long 
rejected that kind of “if not us, who?” argument as a basis
for  standing.  See  Clapper,  568  U. S.,  at  420–421;  Valley 
Forge, 454 U. S., at 489; Richardson, 418 U. S., at 179–180. 
The “assumption” that if these plaintiffs lack “standing to
sue,  no  one  would  have  standing,  is  not  a  reason  to  find 
standing.”  Schlesinger,  418  U. S.,  at  227.  Rather,  some 
issues may be left to the political and democratic processes:
The Framers of the Constitution did not “set up something
in the nature of an Athenian democracy or a New England 
town  meeting  to  oversee  the  conduct  of  the  National 
Government  by  means  of  lawsuits  in  federal  courts.” 
Richardson, 418 U. S., at 179; see Texas, 599 U. S., at 685. 

* 

* 

* 

The plaintiffs have sincere legal, moral, ideological, and 
policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed 
regulation  of  mifepristone.  But  under  Article  III  of  the 
Constitution,  those  kinds  of  objections  alone  do  not 
establish a justiciable case or controversy in federal court. 
Here, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that FDA’s
relaxed regulatory requirements likely would cause them to 
suffer an injury in fact.  For that reason, the federal courts 
are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs’ concerns
about  FDA’s  actions.    The  plaintiffs  may  present  their 
concerns  and  objections  to  the  President  and  FDA  in  the
regulatory process, or to Congress and the President in the
legislative process.  And they may also express their views 
about  abortion  and  mifepristone  to 
fellow  citizens, 
including in the political and electoral processes.

“No  principle  is  more  fundamental  to  the  judiciary’s
proper  role  in  our  system  of  government  than  the 
constitutional  limitation  of  federal-court  jurisdiction  to
actual cases or controversies.”  Simon, 426 U. S., at 37.  We 
reverse the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the