{"schema":"abhortion.org/case.v1/v1","id":"fda-v-alliance-hippocratic-medicine-2024","type":"case","case_name_short":"FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine","case_name_full":"Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine","citation":"602 U.S. 367 (2024)","docket_number":"23-235","status":"Good law on standing","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_argued":"2024-03-26","date_decided":"2024-06-13","vote":"9-0","question_presented":"Whether anti-abortion physicians and medical associations who do not prescribe mifepristone have Article III standing to challenge the FDA's 2016 and 2021 modifications to the drug's REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy), which expanded access via telehealth and pharmacy dispensing.","holding":"The plaintiff physicians and medical associations lack Article III standing. The Court did not reach the merits of whether the FDA's actions were lawful.","reasoning_summary":"Justice Kavanaugh's unanimous opinion held that the plaintiffs' asserted injuries — potential conscience burden if they treated women experiencing mifepristone complications, and diverted resources — were too attenuated to satisfy standing's causation and redressability requirements. Federal conscience protections independently shield doctors from being forced to perform abortions.","practical_effect":"The FDA's expanded access rules (telehealth prescription, mail delivery, pharmacy dispensing) remained in effect. Three state intervenors — Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas — continued the litigation on a separate track. In September 2025, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk transferred the case to the Eastern District of Missouri.","opinions":[{"role":"majority","author":"Kavanaugh, J.","joined_by":"Roberts, C.J.; Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, Jackson, JJ.","summary":"The plaintiff physicians and medical associations lack Article III standing. The Court did not reach the merits of whether the FDA's actions were lawful."},{"role":"concurrence","author":"Thomas, J.","summary":"Concurred to emphasize skepticism about associational standing generally."}],"key_quotes":[{"quote":"The plaintiffs do not prescribe or use mifepristone. And FDA is not requiring them to do or refrain from doing anything. Rather, the plaintiffs want FDA to make mifepristone more difficult for other doctors to prescribe and for pregnant women to obtain. Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff's desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue.","speaker":"Kavanaugh, J. (majority)","location":"slip op. at 1-2"},{"quote":"Federal law fully protects doctors against being required to provide abortions or other medical treatment against their consciences.","speaker":"Kavanaugh, J. (majority)","location":"slip op. at 17"}],"perspectives":{"abolitionist":"Abolitionists were disappointed but note that the merits were not reached. Foundation to Abolish Abortion argues that the Comstock Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1461–1462) already prohibits mailing abortion drugs regardless of FDA approval, and that a properly framed case can raise this.","mainstream_prolife":"AUL and SBA Pro-Life America criticized the ruling but note the standing dismissal preserves the possibility of a later challenge by state intervenors or by parties with clearer injury. Alito and Thomas raised the Comstock Act at oral argument, which is seen as a positive signal.","prochoice":"The unanimous ruling was celebrated as protecting essential medication abortion access. Some advocates cautioned that a future case with different plaintiffs could still succeed."},"significance":{"overall":8,"legal_precedential_weight":5,"practical_impact_on_access":9,"movement_relevance_abolitionist":8,"enduring_relevance_2026":9,"rationale":"The ruling is a standing decision, not a merits decision, but its practical effect is to preserve mifepristone access — which now accounts for nearly two-thirds of U.S. abortions. The unresolved Comstock question makes the case central to abolitionist strategy."},"sources":{"primary":[{"name":"supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf","href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf"},{"name":"supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/602/23-235","href":"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/602/23-235/"}],"secondary":[{"name":"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA_v._Allianc…","href":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA_v._Alliance_for_Hippocratic_Medicine"},{"name":"reproductiverights.org/cases/alliance-for-…","href":"https://reproductiverights.org/cases/alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-v-fda/"}]},"related_cases":{"cites_earlier":["Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)"],"cited_by_later":["Louisiana v. FDA (2026, order)"]},"notes":"Justices Alito and Thomas raised the Comstock Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1461–1462) at oral argument, signaling openness to a properly presented enforcement claim.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/fda-v-alliance-hippocratic-medicine-2024.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/fda-v-alliance-hippocratic-medicine-2024.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/fda-v-alliance-hippocratic-medicine-2024.json"}}