The Supreme Court upholds the validity of the abortion medication mifepristone, so permitting its continued sale.
The United States Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on February 8, 2024.
In a decision that will keep the abortion pill mifepristone available for mail order, the Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit contesting the Food and Drug Administration's method of policing the medication. In the first substantial issue involving reproductive rights to reach the Supreme Court since the conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, the decision represents a huge blow for the anti-abortion movement.
For the court as a whole, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.
The physicians and anti-abortion organisations who had contested the drug's availability were found not to have the legal standing to file a lawsuit. The court's rationale, while technical, is significant because it may pave the way for other mifepristone challenges in the road. "We acknowledge that a significant number of individuals, including the plaintiff physicians present, hold genuine apprehensions and disapprovals towards others utilising mifepristone and undergoing abortions," wrote Kavanaugh. "However, the mere fact that others are permitted to partake in a particular activity does not give citizens and doctors the right to sue—at least not unless the plaintiffs can show how their interests would be harmed by the government's purported underregulation of others."
The pharmaceutical industry fiercely opposed the drug's challenge, stating that a decision that called into question the legality of mifepristone's rules could pave the way for legal challenges aimed at other drugs. "A plaintiff's desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue," Kavanaugh said, citing the Constitution. "Doctors and citizens who disagree with what the law permits others to do can always bring their concerns to the attention of the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek stronger legislative or regulatory limitations on specific activities," the author stated.
Kavanaugh's judgement mostly addressed the different legal standards that a plaintiff must meet in order for the courts to properly become involved in a dispute. Referring to the medical associations and anti-abortion doctors who had sued the federal government over the drug's present regulatory framework, Kavanaugh wrote that the plaintiffs had not sustained the kind of physical or financial harm necessary to establish standing. He pointed out that individual medical professionals who are morally opposed to providing abortions are already protected by federal law. "To put it succinctly, the plaintiffs have not demonstrated — and cannot demonstrate — that the FDA's actions will cause them to suffer any conscience injury, given the broad and comprehensive conscience protections guaranteed by federal law," Kavanaugh said.
In his concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas raised additional concerns he had with the standing claims of the anti-abortion organisations.
