Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

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

23 

Opinion of the Court 

368, 378.  Havens had provided HOME’s black employees 
false information about apartment availability—a practice
Id.,  at  366,  and  n. 1,  368. 
known  as  racial  steering. 
Critically,  HOME  not  only  was  an 
issue-advocacy
organization,  but  also  operated  a  housing  counseling 
service.  Id.,  at  368.  And  when  Havens  gave  HOME’s
employees false information about apartment availability,
HOME sued Havens because Havens “perceptibly impaired
HOME’s ability to provide counseling and referral services
for low- and moderate-income homeseekers.”  Id., at 379.  In 
other  words,  Havens’s  actions  directly  affected  and 
interfered  with  HOME’s  core  business  activities—not 
dissimilar to a retailer who sues a manufacturer for selling
defective goods to the retailer.

That  is  not  the  kind  of  injury  that  the  medical 
associations  have  alleged  here.    FDA’s  actions  relaxing 
regulation  of  mifepristone  have  not  imposed  any  similar 
impediment 
the  medical  associations’  advocacy 
businesses. 

to 

At most, the medical associations suggest that FDA is not 
properly  collecting  and  disseminating  information  about 
mifepristone,  which  the  associations  say  in  turn  makes  it 
more  difficult  for  them  to  inform  the  public  about  safety 
risks. 
But  the  associations  have  not  claimed  an 
informational  injury,  and  in  any  event  the  associations
have  not  suggested  that  federal  law  requires  FDA  to 
disseminate such information upon request by members of
the public.  Cf. Federal Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U. S. 
11 (1998). 

Havens  was  an  unusual  case,  and  this  Court  has  been 
careful not to extend the Havens holding beyond its context.
So too here. 

Finally,  it  has  been  suggested  that  the  plaintiffs  here 
must have standing because if these plaintiffs do not have
standing, then it may be that no one would have standing 
to challenge FDA’s 2016 and 2021 actions.  For starters, it