Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 31

2 

FDA v. ALLIANCE FOR HIPPOCRATIC MEDICINE 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

alski v. Tesmer, 543 U. S. 125, 130 (2004) (internal quota-
tion marks omitted).  Applying these precedents, the Court 
explains  that  the  doctors  cannot  establish  third-party
standing to sue for violations of their patients’ rights with-
out showing an injury of their own.  Ante, at 21, n. 5.  But, 
there is a far simpler reason to reject this theory: Our third-
party standing doctrine is mistaken.  As I have previously
explained, a plaintiff cannot establish an Article III case or 
controversy by asserting another person’s rights.1  See June 
Medical Services L. L. C. v. Russo, 591 U. S. 299, 366 (2020) 
(THOMAS, J.,  dissenting);  Kowalski,  543  U. S.,  at  135 
(THOMAS, J.,  concurring).    So,  just  as  abortionists  lack 
standing  to  assert  the  rights  of  their  clients,  doctors  who
oppose abortion cannot vicariously assert the rights of their 
patients.

I write separately to highlight what appear to be similar 
problems with another theory of standing asserted in this
suit.  The  Alliance  and  other  plaintiff  associations  claim 
that they have associational standing to sue for their mem-
bers’ injuries.2  Under the Court’s precedents, “an associa-
tion  has  standing  to  bring  suit  on  behalf  of  its  members
when:  (a)  its  members  would  otherwise  have  standing  to 
sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect
are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither
the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the par-
ticipation of individual members in the lawsuit.”  Hunt v. 
Washington  State  Apple  Advertising  Comm’n,  432  U. S. 

—————— 

1 Certain forms of standing that may be representational in a general 
sense,  such  as  next  friend  standing,  are  “not  inconsistent  with  this 
point.”  June Medical Services, L. L. C. v. Russo, 591 U. S. 299, 365, n. 2 
(2020) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). 

2 By “associational standing,” I do not refer to standing premised upon 
an association’s own alleged injuries.  Instead, I refer to the doctrine that 
permits a plaintiff association to assert the rights of its members.  See 
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 511 (1975).