Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

FDA v. ALLIANCE FOR HIPPOCRATIC MEDICINE 

Syllabus 

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 
interest” or because of strong opposition to the government’s conduct, 
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of 
Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 486.  The plaintiff associations 
therefore  cannot  establish  standing  simply  because  they  object  to 
FDA’s actions.  The medical associations claim to have standing based 
on their incurring costs to oppose FDA’s actions.  They say that FDA 
has  “caused”  the  associations  to  conduct  their  own  studies  on 
mifepristone so that the associations can better inform their members
and the public about mifepristone’s risks.  Brief for Respondents 43. 
They  contend  that  FDA  has  “forced”  the  associations  to  “expend
considerable time, energy, and resources” drafting citizen petitions to
FDA, as well as engaging in public advocacy and public education, all
to  the  detriment  of  other  spending  priorities.    Id.,  at  44.  But  an 
organization  that  has  not  suffered  a  concrete  injury  caused  by  a 
defendant’s  action  cannot  spend  its  way  into  standing  simply  by 
expending  money  to  gather  information  and  advocate  against  the 
defendant’s  action.    Contrary  to  what  the  medical  associations 
contend, the Court’s decision in Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman does 
not  stand  for  the  expansive  theory  that  standing  exists  when  an 
organization diverts its resources in response to a defendant’s actions. 
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 was suggested that plaintiffs must have standing because 
otherwise  it  may  be  that  no  one  would  have  standing  to  challenge 
FDA’s 2016 and 2021 actions.  That suggestion fails because the Court 
has long rejected that kind of argument as a basis for standing.  The 
“assumption”  that  if  these  plaintiffs  lack  “standing  to  sue,  no  one 
would have standing, is not a reason to find standing.”  Schlesinger v. 
Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208, 227.  Rather, some 
issues may be left to the political and democratic processes.  Pp. 21–
24. 

78 F. 4th 210, reversed and remanded. 

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.  THOMAS, 

J., filed a concurring opinion.