1. Home
  2. News and Insights
  3. Access to Mifepristone Still Standing for Now, but Questions Remain

Access to Mifepristone Still Standing for Now, but Questions Remain

Client Alerts

June 13, 2024

By: Jessica Ring Amunson, Shoba Pillay, Dawn L. Smalls, Katie B. Johnson

On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court issued its decision in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for a unanimous Court dismissing the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine from the case for lack of Article III standing. Justice Thomas joined the Court’s opinion in full but wrote a separate concurrence to address the issue of associational standing. Although the decision has generally been hailed as a victory for reproductive rights, the litigation over access to mifepristone is far from over. What is more, the implications for standing doctrine are likely to be litigated for years to come—both in this case and others. In this client alert, we provide insight into how the decision will affect the ongoing litigation over mifepristone, as well as suits brought by entities to vindicate individual rights or interests, including suits by corporations, governments, and nonprofit organizations.

Of note, the Court’s decision does not address the merits of the Alliance’s claims about the Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) regulation of mifepristone. Instead, the opinion narrowly resolves the case, as predicted, on the ground that the Alliance had not sufficiently asserted Article III standing to challenge FDA’s actions. As the Court described it, the Alliance had three theories of injury, each of which failed to meet the injury-in-fact standard required to establish standing. First, the Alliance argued its members are required to perform incomplete abortions that allegedly occur when a woman takes mifepristone. The Court rejected this argument because federal law provides broad conscience protections that would allow them to refuse to complete the abortion. Second, the Alliance argued that its members suffer monetary and related injuries from the dispensing of mifepristone because they must divert resources to treat patients who present with complications from mifepristone and are exposed to more liability risk as a result. The Court determined that this was unduly speculative, and, moreover, that no doctor had ever been allowed to challenge the FDA’s approval of a drug simply because people might arrive in the emergency room with complications. Finally, the Court rejected the Alliance’s organizational standing claim, determining that the only reason the organization was suing was the “intensity of its interest” in the subject, which cannot be grounds for standing.

There are three key takeaways from this decision:

  • The litigation over mifepristone is far from over. First and foremost, this decision does not spell the end of the mifepristone litigation. While this case was pending at the Supreme Court, three states—Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas—successfully intervened at the district court. Now that the case has been remanded, these three states will continue their challenge to the FDA’s regulation of mifepristone, and based on their complaint, they intend to make many of the same arguments as the Alliance. Specifically, the three states have challenged the FDA’s decisions to expand access to mifepristone from 2016 onward, including the ability to have mifepristone dispensed via telehealth services and distributed by retail pharmacies. Given the district court’s willingness to enjoin the FDA’s approval entirely and the Supreme Court’s failure to reach the merits, it is likely that the states will prevail on at least some of their claims. This would mean another year or more of appeals to the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court, with continuing uncertainty surrounding the regulation of mifepristone in the interim.

    Moreover, this stage of the litigation will pose interesting questions of standing, as the three states, like the Alliance plaintiffs, are not regulated by the FDA’s actions. However states do receive “special solicitude” under the Supreme Court’s standing jurisprudence. Given the frequency with which we have seen states challenge agency action over the past few presidential administrations, the rulings on standing in this case could significantly impact the ability of states and other interested parties to challenge all sorts of agency action in the future.

  • Limits on litigation from unregulated parties. Although Justice Kavanaugh does not portend to break new ground on the Court’s Article III standing doctrine, the opinion adds to a growing line of cases that provide only a narrow window for unregulated parties to challenge a law or regulation. The opinion highlights that unregulated parties will often struggle to establish that their injuries are indeed caused by the regulation or law itself. This emphasis is part of a broader trend, which we saw in the EMTALA oral argument, of limiting litigation to only those plaintiffs or defendants that are directly regulated by an agency action or law. In the EMTALA argument, some of the Justices expressed skepticism that the government could sue the state of Idaho, who was not regulated by EMTALA, as a means of protecting the government’s interest in EMTALA’s enforcement. The Alliance opinion now emphasizes limitations on plaintiffs as well. This narrowing could in turn limit the ability of interest groups representing both public and private entities to litigate against regulations they are not directly affected by—forcing businesses and even individuals whose interests the interest groups purport to represent to litigate cases themselves.
  • Narrowing of organizational and associational standing. The majority opinion and Justice Thomas’s concurrence, which focused on organizational and associational standing, may exacerbate pressure for businesses or entities to litigate independently, rather than as part of a trade group or association.[1] The majority opinion suggests that, in order to establish organizational standing, an organization may need to assert more than the fact that it needed to divert its resources to respond to a problem. Instead, it may need to show that it cannot fulfill its mission. Depending on how it is interpreted by the lower courts, this may represent a narrowing of organizational standing. Going further, Justice Thomas’s concurrence suggests that the Court should eliminate associational standing entirely. According to Justice Thomas, third-party standing, whether organizational or associational, has no support in the Constitution. If this view were to gain traction on the Court, it could significantly limit the ability of trade groups and other organizations to challenge laws that regulate businesses going forward.

Mifepristone remains on the market and the FDA’s expansion of access remains the law of the land.

[1] Organizational standing allows organizations to sue when their mission and work is impacted by a law or regulation. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U. S. 363, 379, n. 19 (1982). Associational standing, by contrast, allows membership organizations to sue on behalf of their members, provided their members would have their own independent standing. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). Here, the Alliance plaintiffs raised both organizational and associational standing arguments. 

Footnotes

[1] Organizational standing allows organizations to sue when their mission and work is impacted by a law or regulation. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U. S. 363, 379, n. 19 (1982). Associational standing, by contrast, allows membership organizations to sue on behalf of their members, provided their members would have their own independent standing. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). Here, the Alliance plaintiffs raised both organizational and associational standing arguments. 

Related Capabilities

© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.

Stay Informed

Access to Mifepristone Still Standing for Now, but Questions Remain

Client Alerts

June 13, 2024

By: Jessica Ring Amunson, Shoba Pillay, Dawn L. Smalls, Katie B. Johnson

On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court issued its decision in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for a unanimous Court dismissing the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine from the case for lack of Article III standing. Justice Thomas joined the Court’s opinion in full but wrote a separate concurrence to address the issue of associational standing. Although the decision has generally been hailed as a victory for reproductive rights, the litigation over access to mifepristone is far from over. What is more, the implications for standing doctrine are likely to be litigated for years to come—both in this case and others. In this client alert, we provide insight into how the decision will affect the ongoing litigation over mifepristone, as well as suits brought by entities to vindicate individual rights or interests, including suits by corporations, governments, and nonprofit organizations.

Of note, the Court’s decision does not address the merits of the Alliance’s claims about the Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) regulation of mifepristone. Instead, the opinion narrowly resolves the case, as predicted, on the ground that the Alliance had not sufficiently asserted Article III standing to challenge FDA’s actions. As the Court described it, the Alliance had three theories of injury, each of which failed to meet the injury-in-fact standard required to establish standing. First, the Alliance argued its members are required to perform incomplete abortions that allegedly occur when a woman takes mifepristone. The Court rejected this argument because federal law provides broad conscience protections that would allow them to refuse to complete the abortion. Second, the Alliance argued that its members suffer monetary and related injuries from the dispensing of mifepristone because they must divert resources to treat patients who present with complications from mifepristone and are exposed to more liability risk as a result. The Court determined that this was unduly speculative, and, moreover, that no doctor had ever been allowed to challenge the FDA’s approval of a drug simply because people might arrive in the emergency room with complications. Finally, the Court rejected the Alliance’s organizational standing claim, determining that the only reason the organization was suing was the “intensity of its interest” in the subject, which cannot be grounds for standing.

There are three key takeaways from this decision:

  • The litigation over mifepristone is far from over. First and foremost, this decision does not spell the end of the mifepristone litigation. While this case was pending at the Supreme Court, three states—Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas—successfully intervened at the district court. Now that the case has been remanded, these three states will continue their challenge to the FDA’s regulation of mifepristone, and based on their complaint, they intend to make many of the same arguments as the Alliance. Specifically, the three states have challenged the FDA’s decisions to expand access to mifepristone from 2016 onward, including the ability to have mifepristone dispensed via telehealth services and distributed by retail pharmacies. Given the district court’s willingness to enjoin the FDA’s approval entirely and the Supreme Court’s failure to reach the merits, it is likely that the states will prevail on at least some of their claims. This would mean another year or more of appeals to the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court, with continuing uncertainty surrounding the regulation of mifepristone in the interim.

    Moreover, this stage of the litigation will pose interesting questions of standing, as the three states, like the Alliance plaintiffs, are not regulated by the FDA’s actions. However states do receive “special solicitude” under the Supreme Court’s standing jurisprudence. Given the frequency with which we have seen states challenge agency action over the past few presidential administrations, the rulings on standing in this case could significantly impact the ability of states and other interested parties to challenge all sorts of agency action in the future.

  • Limits on litigation from unregulated parties. Although Justice Kavanaugh does not portend to break new ground on the Court’s Article III standing doctrine, the opinion adds to a growing line of cases that provide only a narrow window for unregulated parties to challenge a law or regulation. The opinion highlights that unregulated parties will often struggle to establish that their injuries are indeed caused by the regulation or law itself. This emphasis is part of a broader trend, which we saw in the EMTALA oral argument, of limiting litigation to only those plaintiffs or defendants that are directly regulated by an agency action or law. In the EMTALA argument, some of the Justices expressed skepticism that the government could sue the state of Idaho, who was not regulated by EMTALA, as a means of protecting the government’s interest in EMTALA’s enforcement. The Alliance opinion now emphasizes limitations on plaintiffs as well. This narrowing could in turn limit the ability of interest groups representing both public and private entities to litigate against regulations they are not directly affected by—forcing businesses and even individuals whose interests the interest groups purport to represent to litigate cases themselves.
  • Narrowing of organizational and associational standing. The majority opinion and Justice Thomas’s concurrence, which focused on organizational and associational standing, may exacerbate pressure for businesses or entities to litigate independently, rather than as part of a trade group or association.[1] The majority opinion suggests that, in order to establish organizational standing, an organization may need to assert more than the fact that it needed to divert its resources to respond to a problem. Instead, it may need to show that it cannot fulfill its mission. Depending on how it is interpreted by the lower courts, this may represent a narrowing of organizational standing. Going further, Justice Thomas’s concurrence suggests that the Court should eliminate associational standing entirely. According to Justice Thomas, third-party standing, whether organizational or associational, has no support in the Constitution. If this view were to gain traction on the Court, it could significantly limit the ability of trade groups and other organizations to challenge laws that regulate businesses going forward.

Mifepristone remains on the market and the FDA’s expansion of access remains the law of the land.

[1] Organizational standing allows organizations to sue when their mission and work is impacted by a law or regulation. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U. S. 363, 379, n. 19 (1982). Associational standing, by contrast, allows membership organizations to sue on behalf of their members, provided their members would have their own independent standing. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). Here, the Alliance plaintiffs raised both organizational and associational standing arguments. 

Footnotes

[1] Organizational standing allows organizations to sue when their mission and work is impacted by a law or regulation. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U. S. 363, 379, n. 19 (1982). Associational standing, by contrast, allows membership organizations to sue on behalf of their members, provided their members would have their own independent standing. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). Here, the Alliance plaintiffs raised both organizational and associational standing arguments. 

Related Capabilities

© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.

Stay Informed

News and Insights

Event

Partner Karin Dryhurst to Speak at ABA In-House Counsel Session on Anti-Discrimination Laws

On July 14, Partner Karin Dryhurst will speak on a panel hosted by the American Bar Association Business Law Section’s In-House Counsel Committee titled "How to Handle Current Discrimination Risks Across Industries: What In-House Counsel Need to Know About the Evolving Landscape."

July 14, 2026

Recognition

Jenner & Block Named a Leader in Pro Bono by The American Lawyer

Jenner & Block has been named a leader in pro bono in The American Lawyer's 2026 Pro Bono Report, ranking in the top three nationally and #1 internationally for a second consecutive year.

July 8, 2026

Recognition

Tony Barkow Named Finalist for Office Managing Partner of the Year by New York Law Journal

Tony Barkow, Managing Partner of Jenner & Block's New York office, has been named a finalist for the Office Managing Partner of the Year award in the New York Law Journal's New York Legal Awards 2026.

July 8, 2026

Publications

Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in Bloomberg Law

Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block's Congressional Investigations Practice, spoke with Bloomberg Law article about how companies can prepare for potential oversight exposure ahead of this fall's midterm elections.

July 7, 2026

News

Jenner & Block Secures Summary Judgment for Sexual Assault Survivor in Nearly Seven-Year Retaliation Suit

A Jenner & Block team secured summary judgment on behalf of a pro bono client who was sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after reporting a sexual assault and cooperating with law enforcement, bringing to a close nearly seven years of retaliatory litigation.

July 7, 2026

Client Alerts

The EU Anti-Corruption Directive: What You Need to Know

Directive (EU) 2026/1021 (the Directive) is the most far-reaching development in European anti-corruption law in more than two decades. It harmonises the criminal anti-corruption laws of the participating Member States by establishing a single set of criminal offences, penalties, and prevention duties.1 

July 7, 2026

Publications

In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision

Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.

July 1, 2026

Event

Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference

On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.

July 1, 2026

Recognition

Chief Justice Roberts Appoints Partner Catherine Steege to Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. has appointed Partner Catherine Steege to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules. Cathy will serve a three-year term beginning October 1, 2026, on the committee that shapes and recommends changes to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure nationwide.

June 30, 2026

Event

CLE Relay 2026 — Session 4 — US Supreme Court Term in Review

Jenner & Block's appellate lawyers review the most consequential cases from the 2025–2026 Supreme Court term. This session covers high-profile decisions and pending matters addressing presidential power, agency independence, birthright citizenship, voting rights, and other significant constitutional and federal law questions before the Court.

June 30, 2026

Recognition

Associate Andrew Santana Recognized as “Most Promising Newcomer” at 2026 California Legal Awards

Associate Andrew Santana was selected as the "Most Promising Newcomer" at this year's California Legal Awards Ceremony in Los Angeles.

June 29, 2026

News

Jenner & Block Wins Landmark Supreme Court Victory in Chatrie v. United States

Jenner & Block Partner Adam Unikowsky has secured a landmark victory at the Supreme Court of the United States in Chatrie v. United States, with the Court holding by a 6-3 vote that accessing a person’s location data in the cloud is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant satisfying the Constitution’s probable cause and particularity requirements. The Court remanded the case to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to determine whether the sp

June 29, 2026

Event

CLE Relay 2026 — Session 3 — AI Challenges and Opportunities in the Legal Space

As AI tools become embedded in business operations across sectors, the legal questions surrounding their use are growing more complex — and more consequential. Jenner & Block lawyers examine the latest developments in AI from a legal perspective, including cyber risk, content and intellectual property considerations, and strategies for advising clients on responsible adoption.

June 26, 2026

Client Alerts

Two New Executive Orders on Quantum Computing: Key Takeaways for Companies Operating in Quantum Information Science and Critical Infrastructure

On June 22, 2026, President Trump signed two Executive Orders establishing an updated comprehensive federal framework for quantum information science and technology. The first order focuses on security—requiring federal agencies and government contractors to upgrade their encryption systems to withstand attacks from future quantum computers, before those computers arrive. The second focuses on innovation—accelerating research, commercialization, and workforce development in quantum computing and

June 26, 2026

Recognition

Jenner & Block Named to Public Interest Law Initiative’s 2026 Pro Bono Recognition Roster

For the 16th year, Jenner & Block has been recognized in Public Interest Law Initiative’s Pro Bono Recognition Roster (PILI).

June 25, 2026

Recognition

National Legal Aid & Defender Association Honors Jenner & Block with 2026 Beacon of Justice Award

Jenner & Block has been named a recipient of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association’s (NLADA) 2026 Beacon of Justice Award for the “firm’s commitment to advancing equal justice through innovative and impactful pro bono work.” This year’s recognition highlights law firms “addressing issues related to ‘Protecting Democracy and Civil Rights’ for work done in 2025.”

June 25, 2026

Publications

“Escape from Kabul,” American College of Trial Lawyers

In an article for the American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL) Summer 2026 Journal, Partner Terri Mascherin tells the story of an extraordinary rescue operation carried out by seven women judges to save their Afghan counterparts from the Taliban following the fall of Kabul in August 2021.

June 23, 2026

Publications

In Employee Relations Law Journal: What Happens When ERISA Disability Deadlines Slip

Partner Joseph Torres along with Associates Emma O'Connor and Christopher LeWarne, authored an article for the Employee Relations Law Journal analyzing a significant Fourth Circuit decision with substantial consequences for ERISA disability plan administrators.

June 23, 2026

Recognition

Jenner & Block Honors 2026 Pro Bono Awards Recipients

Jenner & Block continued its longstanding tradition of recognizing exceptional pro bono service at the firm's 2026 Pro Bono Awards Ceremony, honoring lawyers and professional staff who exemplify the firm's core commitment of expanding access to justice through zealous advocacy. The recipients represent the breadth of Jenner's pro bono work across all offices and practice areas, demonstrating how dedicated legal service can make meaningful impact.

June 22, 2026

Publications

Partner Joseph Torres Named to Negocios Now's "Who's Who in Hispanic Business" as One of 50 Powerful Latino Lawyers

Partner Joseph Torres has been selected for Negocios Now's Who's Who in Hispanic Business special edition as one of 50 Powerful Latino Lawyers. Joseph will be recognized at Negocios Now's Gala event on July 23, 2026.

June 18, 2026

View All News and Insights