Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

20 

FDA v. ALLIANCE FOR HIPPOCRATIC MEDICINE 

Opinion of the Court 

drugs by others may cause more visits to doctors. 

And  if  we  were  now  to  invent  a  new  doctrine  of  doctor 
standing, there would be no principled way to cabin such a
sweeping  doctrinal  change  to  doctors  or  other  healthcare 
providers.  Firefighters  could  sue  to  object  to  relaxed
building codes that increase fire risks.  Police officers could 
sue to challenge a government decision to legalize certain
activities  that  are  associated  with  increased  crime. 
Teachers in border states could sue to challenge allegedly
lead  to  overcrowded 
lax 
classrooms. 

immigration  policies  that 

We  decline  to  start  the  Federal  Judiciary  down  that 
uncharted path.  That path would seemingly not end until
virtually every citizen had standing to challenge virtually
every government action that they do not like—an approach
to  standing  that  this  Court  has  consistently  rejected  as 
flatly inconsistent with Article III.

We recognize that many citizens, including the plaintiff
doctors here, have sincere concerns about and objections to
others  using  mifepristone  and  obtaining  abortions.  But 
citizens  and  doctors  do  not  have  standing  to  sue  simply 
because others are allowed to engage in certain activities—
at  least  without  the  plaintiffs  demonstrating  how  they 
would  be  injured  by  the  government’s  alleged  under-
regulation of others.  See Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs 
v.  Sebelius,  671  F. 3d  1275,  1277  (CADC  2012).    Citizens 
and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do
may  always  take  their  concerns  to  the  Executive  and 
Legislative  Branches  and  seek  greater  regulatory  or
legislative restrictions on certain activities.

In sum, the doctors in this case have failed to establish 
Article  III  standing.  The  doctors  have  not  shown  that 
FDA’s actions likely will cause them any injury in fact.  The 
asserted  causal  link  is  simply  too  speculative  or  too