Breaking: Unanimous SCOTUS Rejects Challenge to FDA Approval of Abortion Pill

Ed Morrissey

Kavanaugh wrote the opinion, and Thomas wrote a concurrence. The main ruling rests on standing; the plaintiffs do not have an "injury in fact" in their case, let alone causation, the justices ruled. It's a complicated but fairly predictable process, and that's why this case always seemed like a long shot. Kavanaugh explains why the novel claim in this suit could create a lot more problems than it solves:

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 lax immigration policies that lead to overcrowded classrooms.

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.

Thomas agreed with all of that and highlighted another issue with standing.