FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ALLIANCE FOR HIPPOCRATIC MEDICINE, ET AL.; DANCO LABORATORIES, L.L.C., PETITIONER v. ALLIANCE FOR HIPPOCRATIC MEDICINE, ET AL., 602 U.S. 367

HOLDINGS: [1]-Plaintiffs, who wanted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make the drug mifepristone more difficult for doctors to prescribe and for pregnant women to obtain, failed to establish Article III standing to challenge the FDA’s actions relaxing regulation of mifepristone. Plaintiffs had sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone. But under Article III of the Constitution, those kinds of objections alone did not establish a justiciable case or controversy in federal court. Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that FDA’s relaxed regulatory requirements likely would cause them to suffer an injury in fact. For that reason, the federal courts were the wrong forum for addressing plaintiffs’ concerns about FDA’s actions.