“Standing Beyond Reason” examines the Supreme Court’s ruling in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, affirming that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the FDA’s regulation of mifepristone. In doing so, the Court reinforced the principle that Article III standing requires a concrete, particularized, and imminent injury—which the plaintiffs failed to establish. The decision curbs judicial overreach and prevents lower courts from wielding excessive power to regulate executive agencies based on speculative harms.
The article analyzes the plaintiffs’ asserted economic and conscience-based injuries, explaining why the Court correctly found them too hypothetical to warrant standing. It also contextualizes the case within broader debates over judicial power, highlighting the dangers of courts substituting their judgment for that of scientific experts at federal agencies. By scrutinizing the Fifth Circuit’s expansive approach to standing, the article argues that the Supreme Court’s ruling not only preserved access to mifepristone but also protected the integrity of the judicial system against unwarranted egulatory decision intervention.
Ultimately, Hippocratic Medicine is a crucial reaffirmation of standing doctrine, ensuring that courts remain within their constitutional role rather than acting as unelected policymakers.