Supremes Offer No Surprise -- Private Doctor Groups Cannot Sue To Limit Other People's Access To Long-FDA Approved Drugs (With A Better Safety Record Than Tylenol).

We have predicted for years that these Texas Tangerine Judge Kacsmaryk, and Fifth Circuit panel errors -- plain as the nose on Alito's face -- would be corrected at the Supremes. Now they have been. A safe, long approved family planning drug will remain widely available, nationwide. Supposed "pro-life" crisis actors in Texas and Mizzou cannot change that.

[And I should point out that this is a very bad omen for Judicial Watch's supposed suit against reparations. Those plaintiffs lack Article III standing, as well -- on much the same grounds.]

The full 38 page unanimous opinion is here. And I am smiling. The wheels of justice do turn slowly, but they do grind fakes. . . to a very fine powder in the end:

. . .For a plaintiff to get in the federal courthouse door and obtain a judicial determination of what the governing law is, the plaintiff cannot be a mere bystander, but instead must have a “personal stake” in the dispute. TransUnion, 594 U. S., at 423. The requirement that the plaintiff possess a personal stake helps ensure that courts decide litigants’ legal rights in specific cases, as Article III requires, and that courts do not opine on legal issues in response to citizens who might “roam the country in search of governmental wrongdoing.” Valley Forge, 454 U. S., at 487. . . .

Rather, some issues may be left to the political and democratic processes: The Framers of the Constitution did not “set up something in the nature of an Athenian democracy or a New England town meeting to oversee the conduct of the National Government by means of lawsuits in federal courts.” Richardson, 418 U. S., at 179; see Texas, 599 U. S., at 685. . . .

Indeed -- do take heed, Mr. Fitton, and Palatine Village Trustee Svenson. Onward, grinning into the sunshine. Be excellent to one another.

नमस्ते