Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to  notify  the  Reporter  of 
Decisions,  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  D. C.  20543, 
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 23–235 and 23–236 
_________________ 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, ET AL., 
PETITIONERS 
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 KAVANAUGH delivered the opinion of the Court. 
In  2016  and  2021,  the  Food  and  Drug  Administration 
relaxed  its  regulatory  requirements  for  mifepristone,  an
abortion drug.  Those changes made it easier for doctors to 
prescribe  and  pregnant  women  to  obtain  mifepristone.
Several pro-life doctors and associations sued FDA, arguing
that  FDA’s  actions  violated  the  Administrative  Procedure 
Act.  But the plaintiffs do not prescribe or use mifepristone.
And FDA is not requiring them to do or refrain from doing
anything.  Rather,  the  plaintiffs  want  FDA  to  make 
mifepristone  more  difficult  for  other  doctors  to  prescribe 
and for pregnant women to obtain.  Under Article III of the 
Constitution,  a  plaintiff ’s  desire  to  make  a  drug  less
available for others does not establish standing to sue.  Nor 
do the plaintiffs’ other standing theories suffice.  Therefore, 
the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge FDA’s actions.