Repugnance doesn't establish standing in court: Supreme Court reverses Kacsmaryk on medical abortion

  Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that (for the time being at least) the medical abortion pill mifepristone should remain legal and widely available.  This reverses the decision of judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Federal District court in Amarillo Texas, who ruled that the FDA's authorization of the drug was illegal. (That decision was stayed pending appeal, which has now reversed it.)

The Supreme Court left open the underlying legal issues, but ruled against Judge Kacsmaryk's decision that the plaintiffs in the case, a consortium of medical associations and physicians had standing to bring the case. They say clearly that finding a law repugnant doesn't give a plaintiff standing:

“standing screens out plaintiffs who might have only a general legal, moral, ideological, or policy objection to a particular government action.” 

More colorfully, they say

"As Justice Scalia memorably said, Article III [standing] requires a plaintiff to first answer a basic question: “‘What’s it to you?’” A. Scalia, The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers, 17 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 881, 882 (1983). For a plaintiff to get in the federal courthouse door and obtain a judicial determination of what the governing law is, the plaintiff cannot be a mere bystander, but instead must have a “personal stake” in the dispute."

Here is the full opinion:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, “ FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION ET AL. v. ALLIANCE FOR HIPPOCRATIC MEDICINE ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 23–235. Argued March 26, 2024—Decided June 13, 2024, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf