Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 30

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 23–235 and 23–236 
_________________ 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, ET AL., 
PETITIONER 
v. 
ALLIANCE FOR HIPPOCRATIC MEDICINE, ET AL. 

23–235 

23–236 

DANCO LABORATORIES, L.L.C., PETITIONER 
v. 
ALLIANCE FOR HIPPOCRATIC MEDICINE, ET AL. 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[June 13, 2024] 

JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring. 
I join the Court’s opinion in full because it correctly ap-
plies our precedents to conclude that the Alliance for Hip-
pocratic Medicine and other plaintiffs lack standing.  Our 
precedents require a plaintiff to demonstrate that the de-
fendant’s  challenged  actions  caused  his  asserted  injuries.
And, the Court aptly explains why plaintiffs have failed to
establish that the Food and Drug Administration’s changes
to the regulation of mifepristone injured them.  Ante, at 13– 
24. 

The  Court  also  rejects  the  plaintiff  doctors’  theory  that 
they have third-party standing to assert the rights of their
patients.  Ante, at 21, n. 5.  Our third-party standing prec-
edents allow a plaintiff to assert the rights of another per-
son  when  the  plaintiff  has  a  “close  relationship  with  the 
person who possesses the right” and “there is a hindrance
to the possessor’s ability to protect his own interests.”  Kow-