SCOTUS unanimously says that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge FDA regulations of mifepristone

[In It to Win It]

Opinion - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf

[RandySF]

1. They don't want to further hurt Republicans this year.

[onecaliberal]

34. Fuck them. We're coming.

[Johnny2X2X]

2. Big win for human rights

They should have never taken this case. They did so only to rule unanimously that there isn't standing.

[House of Roberts]

11. SCOTUS had to take this case.

The lower court had it banned.

[Johnny2X2X]

13. Oh right, I forgot

Thanks.

[Zeitghost]

21. So you wanted the 5th Circuit ruling to stand?

And leave the restrictions on the drug in place?

[malaise]

4. Next - no Immunity

Another nice Thursday win

[blogslug]

16. SCOTUSblog says we have to wait until next week for that opinion?

https://www.scotusblog.com/

This means no announcement on presidential immunity until next week at the earliest. Good or bad, the Court is not going to release that decision on Donald Trump's birthday.

That decision could come tomorrow.

Ellena Erskine (Mod)
9:25 AM

[malaise]

18. Would be the perfect birthday present

but I can wait for next Thursday😀

[Takket]

19. I don't understand. She says next week. Then she says maybe tomorrow?

[sl8]

23. It's hard to tell from the excerpt, but those comments are from 2 different posters.

The first poster (Mitch Gordon) says it won't come until next week, the second poster (Mark Walsh - Mod) replies that it could come tomorrow.

The "Ellena Erskine (Mod)" attribution belongs to an entirely different comment: "Thanks all! See you back here tomorrow".


It's much easier to see at the link.

[blogslug]

28. I don't understand either

I stopped reading. I don't like the layout of that site. The updated post window thingy gives me a twitch.

[lamp_shade]

5. Well I'll be damned.

[Lovie777]

6. For now..............................

it's election year, and the six RW justices realizes it, maybe.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Fucking weasels

I am VERY HAPPY the drug remains available.

BUT

The whole thing remains an issue. A Sword of Damocles over the heads of decent people.

[wnylib]

33. There are anti abortion people who will see this ruling as an invitation

to seek a situation that meets the standard of having standing on the issue. We have not seen the end of this battle.

[appmanga]

8. They had to take the case...

...to decide the plaintiffs didn't have standing? And then it took months to issue a decision?

This Court is so full of shit.

ETA: this should have been the same outcome for the Colorado website case, but wasn't.

ETAM: Uncle Clarence, in his typical snake in the grass fashion, uses a concurrence to pitch out his far right views in hopes of his ideas as being taken as something more than dicta or as a prod for future litigation. In the same way an association can no longer bring challenges to part of the Voting Rights Act, Uncle Clarence is saying someone needs to argue this should apply to most other, if not all, lawsuits. This guy is a real piece of work.

[In It to Win It]

12. The 5th Circuit said they had standing... so yes they had to take the case.

[appmanga]

17. This should have been a minute order (nt)

[bluestarone]

30. EXACTLY!

WTF?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. BREAKING: Supreme Court rejects bid to restrict access to abortion pill.

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

10. The plaintiffs in the Mifepristone case lack standing, the Supreme Court rules.

The requirement of standing is important

Link to tweet

[Ping Tung]

14. Will Trump figure out a way to take credit for it? "I appointed the judges who......"

[pecosbob]

15. So sorry, Matthew...now go sod off.

[Takket]

20. The problem here is what will SCOTUS do if someone who DOES have standing makes a case

[bluestarone]

31. AGREE! This long and NO ACTUAL ruling on the issue!

What a joke!

[bucolic_frolic]

22. Who would have standing? And how does a no-standing case go all the way to SCOTUS?

[In It to Win It]

26. The trial court and appeals court said they had standing

SCOTUS took the case and said they don't have standing

[LetMyPeopleVote]

24. 147 republicans in Congress begged the court to ban the drug and told women to go to hell.

Link to tweet

[Nevilledog]

27. This ultimately won't matter because they plan on outlawing in under Comstock.

If Trump wins they will take the FDA over and ban it through that agency.


Why anti-abortion advocates are reviving a 19th century sexual purity law

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/10/1243802678/abortion-comstock-act

[GreenWave]

29. And cock blocks Convicted Felon returning to scene of the crime. Virtually no MSNBC coverage!

Almost all on abortion medication.

Thank you Ana Cabrera and subsequently

[elleng]

32. Plaintiffs did not have standing to sue,

such good news!

doctors 'not required to provide treatment that would “violate the doctors’ religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

[Tarzanrock]

35. There never, ever was "standing."

Yep. It's an "election year" so the rightwing assholes and the three (3) bribe taking Justices sitting on the corrupt Court didn't want to do anything to futher "hurt" the Republican Nazi Party in its endeavor to create an authoritarian, Apartheid Christo-Fascist State led by their Dear Leader.

Lack of Standing -- there never, ever was "standing" for those Plaintiffs even before that insane rightwing whacko Federalist Society Judge in Amarillo nor was there ever "standing" when the case was before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals when those insane rightwing whacko Justices on the 5th Circuit "rubber stamped" the corrupt ruling of the insane rightwing whacko Judge's egregiously fucked-up decision in Amarillo.

This was an absolute "slam dunk" decision which no Court should have ever gotten wrong. Maybe, the Supreme Court will now get the even far simpler decision on the question of the Turd's "immunity" claims right as well -- after all the law is bullet proof that the Turd has "no immunity" for his crimes and there is a unanimous Opinion on that matter from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia which conclusively restates this remedial law.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

36. Statement from President Joe Biden on Supreme Court Decision on FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Link to tweet

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/06/13/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-supreme-court-decision-on-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine/

Today’s decision does not change the fact that the fight for reproductive freedom continues. It does not change the fact that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago, and women lost a fundamental freedom. It does not change the fact that the right for a woman to get the treatment she needs is imperiled if not impossible in many states.

It does mean that mifepristone, or medication abortion, remains available and approved. Women can continue to access this medication – approved by the FDA as safe and effective more than 20 years ago.

But let’s be clear: attacks on medication abortion are part of Republican elected officials’ extreme and dangerous agenda to ban abortion nationwide. Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Republican elected officials have imposed extreme abortion bans in 21 states, some of which include zero exceptions for rape or incest. Women are being turned away from emergency rooms, or forced to go to court to plead for care that their doctor recommended or to travel hundreds of miles for care. Doctors and nurses are being threatened with jail time, including life in prison, for providing the health care they have been trained to provide. And contraception and IVF are under attack.

The stakes could not be higher for women across America. Vice President Harris and I stand with the vast majority of Americans who support a woman’s right to make deeply personal health care decisions. We will continue to fight to ensure that women in every state get the health care they need and we will continue to call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law — that is our commitment.

###