The Supreme Court on June 13 allowed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to maintain looser restrictions on mifepristone, otherwise known as the abortion pill, while ruling that a group of pro-life doctors who challenged the agency lacked Article III standing.
The unanimous decision in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine served a temporary win for the FDA and advocates who support the pill, which has come into greater focus after the Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Article III standing refers to the concept that plaintiffs must be harmed by actions that give them legal grounds for suing. It draws from language in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which directs federal courts to decide “cases” and “controversies.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s majority opinion argued that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and others involved failed to show they suffered the type of concrete injury that would allow them to claim standing under Article III.
The doctors’ theories of standing were too speculative and attenuated, according to the Court. “Because the plaintiffs do not prescribe, manufacture, sell, or advertise mifepristone, or sponsor a competing drug, the plaintiffs suffer no direct monetary injuries from FDA’s actions relaxing regulation of mifepristone,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.
A key portion of the majority opinion emphasized that federal conscience protections would preclude doctors like those who sued from partaking in mifepristone abortions and others.
Others with standing could still challenge the FDA’s actions in court after the June 13 decision. The Supreme Court’s decision reversed a hold for the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Fifth Circuit, which effectively allowed mifepristone to stay on the market while maintaining restrictions like a requirement for three in-person visits.
It’s unclear whether another group will have standing to sue and Justice Kavanaugh suggested that might be a possibility. “Some issues may be left to the political and democratic processes,” he wrote.
Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurring opinion criticizing the Court’s doctrine surrounding third-party standing, which includes the idea that associations can sue on behalf of their members.
Two other opinions were issued by the Court on June 13, including one rejecting an attorney’s claim that the First Amendment protects his right to trademark the insult “Trump too small.” That decision (Vidal v. Elster) showed the Court unanimous in its judgment but having pointed disagreements over the use of history and tradition to support that judgment.
—Sam Dorman
TRUMP ABOUT FACE BY SILICON VALLEY CAPITALIST
Everyone changes their mind from time to time. The Ford loyalist grudgingly leases a Toyota—the Beatlemaniac decides the Rolling Stones were cooler after all.
But venture capitalist Jacob Helberg’s volte-face on former President Donald J. Trump is a bit more important than an anodyne consumer preference.
For one thing, Mr. Helberg worked on disinformation and foreign interference for Google during the Trump presidency—a time when Republicans and conservatives frequently complained that Big Tech was against them.
Today, though, the past bundler for Pete Buttigieg is all-in on former President Trump. His donation of $1 million to the Trump campaign made headlines last month.
“I am far from ruling out additional support for President Trump,” Mr. Helberg told The Epoch Times.
He was also critical of the way the “misinformation” label is now brandished: “Most [Big Tech] platforms have become way too censorious and hostile to emerging theories and particularly conservative viewpoints. This is wrong and should be course-corrected.”
Mr. Helberg’s new line is emblematic of bigger trends in Silicon Valley.
He was present at a June 6 fundraiser for the former president in liberal San Francisco. It was hosted by venture capitalists David Sacks and Chamath Palihapitiya, well known for the “All In” podcast.
Former President Trump isn’t the only candidate Mr. Sacks has supported. He was a prominent backer of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s attempt to reach the Oval Office.
Yet, in conjunction with his fundraiser, Mr. Sacks published a lengthy post on X endorsing former President Trump.
“The voters have experienced four years of President Trump and four years of President Biden. In tech, we call this an A/B test. With respect to economic policy, foreign policy, border policy, and legal fairness, Trump performed better,” he wrote.
“President Biden’s radical policies have strangled the technological industry, and disillusioned moderates are waking up to the fact that President Trump is the only candidate in this race who will support the AI and crypto industries and ensure American innovation continues to lead the world,” Mr. Helberg said in a public statement after the fundraiser.
The San Francisco fundraiser was followed two days later by a similar event in Newport Beach, California. It was co-hosted by Palmer Luckey, cofounder of Anduril Industries and a consistent supporter of Republican and conservative causes in recent years.
Along with backing for the former president from Wall Street donors and Miriam Adelson, the widow of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and a major pro-Israel force, the enthusiasm from some parts of the tech world bodes well for the Trump candidacy.
Whether it bodes well for what longtime supporters see as the core “MAGA agenda”—lower immigration, smarter trade, and an end to endless war—remains to be seen.
—Nathan Worcester
BOOKMARKS
A bill to codify in vitro fertilization (IVF) rights into law has failed in the Senate 48–47. Senate Republicans blocked the Democrat measure, saying it was blatant attempt at election-year messaging.
The head of the FAA has said the agency may have given Boeing too much leeway in the past. The reflection comes after a January accident in which a door detached from one of Boeing’s planes shortly after takeoff.
Trump returned to the Capitol for a meeting with GOP lawmakers ahead of the November election. Trump marked the visit down as a success, citing “tremendous unity.”
The G7 has decided to tap into the frozen assets of Russian businessmen to provide war funding for Ukraine. The assets will be collateral in a loan totalling at least $50 billion.