The hottest Standing Substack posts right now

Plaintiffs in the case lack standing, which weakens their argument. They need to show personal harm, not just philosophical opposition.
Even if plaintiffs had standing, their claims fail on the merits. The FDA's decisions were well-reasoned and based on evidence, debunking plaintiffs' objections.
Banning mifepristone won't help the plaintiff-doctors study it; rather, it will hinder data collection. The FDA's evaluation of studies appears rational and reasonable.

A Trump-appointed judge's ruling in Texas allows more states to join a lawsuit against restrictions on the abortion pill Mifepristone.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal to preserve broad access to the Mifepristone abortion pill, delaying potential restrictions.
The legal battle surrounding Mifepristone highlights the impact of standing in court cases and raises questions about judicial legitimacy.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit partially granted the FDA's motion regarding mifepristone, subjecting it to pre-2016 regulatory requirements.
The Fifth Circuit's decision was criticized for its analysis of standing, with concerns raised about statistical certainty and the potential harm to doctors.
The court's reasoning on timeliness and exhaustion was questioned, with issues seen as less relevant due to the stay on the 2000 approval of mifepristone. The argument that the FDA violated the Administrative Procedure Act was also discussed.

The Fifth Circuit's opinion on standing related to mifepristone is controversial and may be overturned.
Plaintiffs in the case lack standing as their claims are speculative and not aligned with the interests of their potential patients.
The court's reasoning may have far-reaching implications, allowing doctors to challenge a wide range of government regulations based on personal aesthetic preferences.

The judge's ruling allowing intervention in the mifepristone case is considered an abuse of discretion and faces criticism for being based on weak arguments and misinterpretation of legal principles.
The states filed a motion to intervene in the case to continue prosecution if private plaintiffs lose standing, but their arguments for intervention are criticized for being speculative and lacking legal basis.
The judge's reasoning for granting intervention is flawed, showing errors in assessing timeliness, prejudice, and the impact of the district court's judgment on future actions.

Get a weekly roundup of the best Substack posts, by hacker news affinity:

Contrived cases can lead to bad legal precedent - The case of 303 Creative highlights how manufactured or contrived cases can have implications on legal decisions and create potentially problematic precedents.
Verification of claims is crucial - The need to verify claims before relying on them is essential, as seen in the case where a fake request impacted the standing argument of 303 Creative.
Supreme Court involvement in contrived cases - The case of 303 Creative raises questions about whether the Supreme Court should involve itself in controversial issues through manufactured litigation.