Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

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

21 

Opinion of the Court 

attenuated to support Article III standing.5 

3 
That leaves the medical associations’ argument that the
associations  themselves  have  organizational  standing. 
Under  this  Court’s  precedents,  organizations  may  have
standing “to sue on their own behalf for injuries they have
sustained.”  Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U. S. 363, 
379, n. 19 (1982).  In doing so, however, organizations must 
satisfy the usual standards for injury in fact, causation, and 
redressability that apply to individuals.  Id., at 378–379. 

According  to  the  medical  associations,  FDA  has 
“impaired”  their  “ability  to  provide  services  and  achieve
their  organizational  missions.”    Brief  for  Respondents  43.
That argument does not work to demonstrate standing.

Like  an  individual,  an  organization  may  not  establish
standing  simply  based  on  the  “intensity  of  the  litigant’s 
the 
interest”  or  because  of  strong  opposition 
government’s conduct, Valley Forge, 454 U. S., at 486, “no 
matter  how  longstanding  the  interest  and  no  matter  how
qualified  the  organization,”  Sierra  Club  v.  Morton,  405 
U. S. 727, 739 (1972).  A plaintiff must show “far more than 
simply  a  setback  to  the  organization’s  abstract  social 
interests.”  Havens,  455  U. S.,  at  379.  The  plaintiff 

to 

—————— 

5 The  doctors  also  suggest  that  they  can  sue  in  a  representative 
capacity to vindicate their patients’ injuries or potential future injuries, 
even  if  the  doctors  have  not  suffered  and  would  not  suffer  an  injury 
themselves.  This Court has repeatedly rejected such arguments.  Under 
this  Court’s  precedents,  third-party  standing,  as  some  have  called  it, 
allows a narrow class of litigants to assert the legal rights of others.  See 
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U. S. 693, 708 (2013).  But “even when we 
have  allowed  litigants  to  assert  the  interests  of  others,  the  litigants
themselves still must have suffered an injury in fact, thus giving them a
sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of the issue in dispute.”  Ibid. 
(quotation  marks  and  alterations  omitted).    The  third-party  standing 
doctrine does not allow doctors to shoehorn themselves into Article III 
standing simply by showing that their patients have suffered injuries or
may suffer future injuries.