So a UNANIMOUS decision by the Supreme Court in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine quashes the entire lawsuit several pro-life groups brought against the FDA regarding mifepristone (i.e., the “abortion pill”), saying the groups who brought the lawsuit do not have standing.
Which makes sense.
This whole case stems from the fact the FDA relaxed regulations on the administration of mifepristone. That is, in effect, a repeal in part of a regulation. And while the Supreme Court stopped short of saying this, I’d argue that when the government repeals anything, be it a statute or a regulation, in whole or in part, NO ONE has standing to challenge that. The ex post facto provision of the Constitution is the reason why, since it means that any repeal applies only going forward.
Imagine if religious organizations or members of the military filed suit against Congress over the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010…. How exactly would they have Article III standing for such a case?
How would anyone have standing to challenge a repeal of a law or regulation? I personally cannot think of a single circumstance where the government repealing a statute or regulation, in whole or in part, is something anyone would ever have standing to challenge.
It’s enacting new laws or regulations that has that potential, but not until those laws or regulations are enforced, and only those upon whom those new laws or regulations are enforced have standing to challenge said laws or regulations.
But challenging a partial repeal of a regulation? Seriously? Again, how could anyone have standing to challenge that?
