23-10362
ever since the 2000 Approval up to and including today—prove that emergency room care is statistically certain in hundreds of thousands of cases. Plaintiff doctors have provided that emergency room care and are statistically certain to provide it in the future.
2.
Second, the associations have standing. As previously discussed, they have associational standing to sue on behalf of their members. See N.Y. State Club Ass’n, Inc., 487 U.S. at 9; Hunt, 432 U.S. at 343. The associations presented affidavits from individual member doctors who have suffered harms. See Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 183–84. Accordingly, they have standing to sue on their members’ behalf.
Plaintiff associations have also suffered independent injuries because FDA’s actions have frustrated their organizational efforts to educate their members and the public on the effects of mifepristone. See Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 379 (1982) (holding that housing non-profit had standing to challenge racial steering practices that impaired its ability “to provide counseling and referral services for low-and-moderate-income homeseekers”). As a result, plaintiff associations have expended “time, energy, and resources to compensate for this lack of information by conducting their own studies and analyses of available data” to “the detriment of other advocacy and educational efforts.” PI App. 174. The Supreme Court has previously stated that such a “concrete and demonstrable injury to the organization’s activities—with the consequent drain on the organization’s resources—constitutes far more than simply a setback to the organization’s abstract social interests,” Havens, 455 U.S. at 379, even where the organizational interest is purely “noneconomic,” id. at 379 n.20. Rather, under these circumstances, “there can be no question that the organization has suffered an injury in fact.” Id. at 379.
22
