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

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

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

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

News

Brandon R. Thompson, Former FCC Enforcement Bureau Lawyer and Communications Transactions Counsel, Joins Jenner & Block's Communications, Internet, and Technology Practice in Washington, DC

WASHINGTON, DC – June 17, 2026: Jenner & Block is pleased to announce that Brandon R. Thompson has joined as a Special Counsel in its Washington, DC office as part of the firm’s Communications, Internet, and Technology (CIT) Practice. Brandon's background in corporate transactions, combined with his Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulatory experience, strengthens the firm's ability to advise clients navigating the intersection of communications law and commercial transactions.Brandon j

06/17/2026

Event

CLE Relay 2026 — Session 2 — Energy for the New Data Age

The rapid expansion of AI data centers is reshaping energy markets and driving a new wave of complex legal and regulatory challenges. Jenner & Block lawyers examine the infrastructure powering the AI economy, including FERC interconnection reform, hyperscaler power procurement strategies, innovative deal structures and contracting models, risk allocation in long-term energy agreements, and the state and federal policy issues shaping energy strategy.

June 17, 2026

Publications

In Law360, Partner Samuel Feder Analyzes the Supreme Court's Ruling in FCC v. AT&T

Partner Sam Feder authored an article in Law360 examining the Supreme Court's June 4 decision in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc., which rejected AT&T's and Verizon's argument that the FCC's forfeiture process violates the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

June 16, 2026

Event

"Memory, Perception, and the Search for Truth in Executive Investigations" IFSEA Annual Conference 2026

London Partner Joanna Ludlam will participate as a panellist at the IFSEA Annual Conference 2026, taking place on Tuesday 16 June 2026 at Saddlers' Hall.

June 16, 2026

Recognition

Jenner & Block's Japan Practice Named Asian Legal Business’ Japan Practice Foreign Law Firm of the Year

Asian Legal Business (ALB) has named Jenner & Block's Japan Practice Foreign Law Firm of the Year in the 2026 Japan Law Awards.

June 15, 2026

Event

CLE Relay 2026 — Session 1 — International Trade in a Volatile World: Accounting for Sanctions and Tariffs in Business Decisions and Contracts

With trade policy shifting faster than compliance teams can track, this session provides in-house counsel with a practical framework for navigating sanctions exposure, tariff-related contract risk, and the evolving enforcement environment. Jenner & Block lawyers draw on substantial experience advising clients across industries on international trade compliance, sanctions risk, and contract structuring in periods of significant regulatory change.

June 12, 2026

Event

Jenner & Block and Invariant Host Webinar on Congressional Oversight Preparedness

On June 4, Jenner & Block and Invariant co-hosted a virtual panel on congressional oversight preparedness, bringing together legal, advocacy, and communications perspectives on what it takes to navigate a congressional investigation. 

June 11, 2026

Event

Jenner & Block Partners to Speak at Council on Governmental Relations Conference

On June 11, Partners Mike Vernick, Katie Wynbrandt, and Betsy Henthorne will speak on a panel at the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) meeting.

June 11, 2026

Event

Partner John Storino to Speak at AI and Legal Ethics CLE Webinar

On June 11, Partner John Storino will speak at "AI and Legal Ethics: Judicial Scrutiny, Professional Judgment, and Career Impact," a CLE ethics webinar hosted by Perrin Conferences, scheduled for 1:00–2:30 PM ET.

June 11, 2026

Recognition

Partner Laurie Edelstein Named Among California's "Top Women Lawyers" by the Daily Journal

Jenner & Block Partner Laurie Edelstein, Co-Chair of the firm's Energy Practice, has been named among California's Top Women Lawyers by the Daily Journal.

June 11, 2026

Event

Partner Terri Mascherin to Speak at Chicago Bar Association’s Trial Superstars Seminar

Partner Terri Mascherin, Co-Chair of Jenner & Block’s Litigation Department, will speak on June 11 on a panel at the “Trial Superstars on Presenting Your Case” seminar sponsored by The Chicago Bar Association.

June 11, 2026

Recognition

Three Jenner & Block Partners Named to Lawdragon's 2026 List of the 500 Leading Global Cyber Lawyers

Lawdragon has recognized Jenner & Block Partners Aaron Cooper, Madeleine Findley, and Shoba Pillay, Co-Chairs of the firm's Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice, on their 2026 list of the 500 Leading Global Cyber Lawyers. This guide celebrates the lawyers who handle the most sensitive online threats, protecting valuable data – including digital assets – shaping compliance programs and protecting against corporate espionage and national security threats in the cyber realm.

June 11, 2026

Recognition

Jenner & Block’s New York Office Earns Top Honors in Chambers USA 2026 for Commercial Litigation, White-Collar Litigation, Media & Entertainment, and Intellectual Property

Jenner & Block’s New York Office Earns Top Honors in Chambers USA 2026 for Commercial Litigation, White-Collar Litigation, Media & Entertainment, and Intellectual Property

June 10, 2026

Recognition

Jenner & Block's Law Firm Defense Practice Receives Band 1 Nationwide Ranking in 2026 Chambers USA

For the third consecutive year, Jenner & Block's Law Firm and Professional Services Defense Practice has achieved a Nationwide Band 1 ranking in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA.

June 10, 2026

Publications

Partner Emily Loeb Quoted in Semafor on Corporate Risk Ahead of Midterm Elections

Partner Emily Loeb was quoted in Semafor in an article examining how House Democrats plan to leverage a potential midterm election majority to pursue oversight investigations into corporations with ties to the Trump administration.

June 9, 2026

Client Alerts

Supreme Court Holds SEC Need Not Prove Investor Losses to Obtain Disgorgement—But Key Limits Remain

In any enforcement action, one of the SEC's most powerful remedies is disgorgement—the ability to force a defendant to repay the ill-gotten gain from an alleged securities law violation. During the Biden administration, the SEC assessed in excess of $2 billion in disgorgement per year, reaching a record $6.1 billion in 2024.

June 9, 2026

Recognition

Chambers USA 2026 Highlights Jenner & Block's Strength Across California

Chambers USA 2026 guide once again recognized Jenner & Block as a leader in the California legal market, highlighting the firm’s excellence across its general commercial, white collar, media and entertainment, and intellectual property practices, with 13 lawyers earning individual recognition.

June 8, 2026

View All News and Insights