@Nonilex The standing here is in a grey area, and I would tend to agree with you, but that sort of question is answered through a process that will take a little time.

The issue at the moment is what to do while that process is hashed out in courts.

There is, of course, the side issue of whether presidents are able to get away with violating law on the grounds of litigants not having standing.

We shouldn't overlook that part of it, since it's why this mess happened in the first place.

@volkris the issue of standing has nothing to do w/the Pres. Only law.
Kacsmaryk “stretched the law to find that the dr grps that challenged mifepristone had suffered enough of a ‘concrete &demonstrable injury’ that they had standing…
“This is supposed to be a strict test,so courts don’t get dragged into matters that aren’t their business.…These doctors don’t even prescribe mifepristone.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/13/abortion-pill-mifepristone-fifth-circuit-decision

@volkris “They claimed, w/o much in the way of proof, that simply having the drug on the market harmed them by forcing them to deal w/the fallout from those who do administer the med.
“As the Biden admin argued…, under this lax approach to standing, ‘doctors could, for example, challenge the licensing of federal firearms dealers, or allegedly inadequate highway safety standards, on the theory that some individuals may be injured & seek treatment from the assn’s members.’

@volkris “…a taste of the contortions it engaged in to find standing, the court accepted the claim that ‘…these drs have had to devote significant time & resources to caring for women experiencing mifepristone’s harmful effects.’(but)…In the 23 yrs mifepristone has been on the market, ERs haven’t been overrun….The court added, ‘A 2nd independent injury from the adverse effects…is the “enormous stress & pressure” drs face….’ Um, maybe if you find this stressful, don’t become an ER dr?

@volkris “&, the court said, ‘not only have these drs suffered injuries in the past, but it’s also inevitable that at least 1 doctor in 1 of these associations will face a harm in the future. …Given how many women these doctors have seen in emergency depts in the past, these doctors quite reasonably know w/statistical certainty …that women will continue needing plaintiffs’ “emergency care.”’

@volkris “As it happens, there is a 2009 Supreme Court case that directly forecloses this, a case neither Kacsmaryk nor the appeals court bothered to cite. In that case, Justice Antonin Scalia — joined by the four other conservative justices — declared that standing cannot be based on ‘past injury rather than imminent future injury.’ Mere statistical probabilities, Scalia said, don’t cut it.”

@volkris the point is in the second sentence, “probabilities, …don’t cut it.”

From the cited case Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009):

“To seek injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show that he is under threat of suffering ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete & particularized; the threat must be actual & imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” - Justice Scalia

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/555/488/