Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 16

12 

FDA v. ALLIANCE FOR HIPPOCRATIC MEDICINE 

Opinion of the Court 

may  be  facilitated  by  clarifying  principles  or  even  clear
rules developed in prior cases.”  Id., at 752. 

Consistent  with  that  understanding  of  how  standing 
principles can develop and solidify, the Court has identified 
a  variety  of  familiar  circumstances  where  government 
regulation  of  a  third-party  individual  or  business  may  be 
likely to cause injury in fact to an unregulated plaintiff.  For 
example,  when  the  government  regulates  (or  under-
regulates) a business, the regulation (or lack thereof ) may
cause downstream or upstream economic injuries to others
in  the  chain,  such  as  certain  manufacturers,  retailers, 
suppliers, competitors, or customers.  E.g., National Credit 
Union Admin. v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 522 U. S. 479, 
488, n. 4 (1998); General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U. S. 
278, 286–287 (1997); Barlow v. Collins, 397 U. S. 159, 162– 
164 
(1970);  Association  of  Data  Processing  Service 
Organizations,  Inc.  v.  Camp,  397  U. S.  150,  152  (1970).
When the government regulates parks, national forests, or 
bodies  of  water,  for  example,  the  regulation  may  cause 
harm to individual users.  E.g., Summers, 555 U. S., at 494. 
When  the  government  regulates  one  property,  it  may
reduce the value of adjacent property.  The list goes on.  See, 
e.g., Department of Commerce, 588 U. S., at 766–768. 

As  those  cases  illustrate,  to  establish  causation,  the 
plaintiff  must  show  a  predictable  chain  of  events  leading 
from the government action to the asserted injury—in other
words, that the government action has caused or likely will 
cause injury in fact to the plaintiff.2 

—————— 

2 In  cases  of  alleged  future  injuries  to  unregulated  parties  from 
government  regulation,  the  causation  requirement  and  the  imminence 
element of the injury in fact requirement can overlap.  Both target the 
same  issue:   Is  it  likely  that  the  government’s  regulation  or  lack  of
regulation of someone else will cause a concrete and particularized injury
in fact to the unregulated plaintiff?