Page:Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023).pdf/10

 Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080, 2087 (2017) (per curiam) (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 428).

We find that FDA and Danco succeed only in part.

Regarding likelihood to succeed on the merits, the stay applicants raise four arguments. They contend (A) plaintiffs are unlikely to defend the district court’s stay because they lack standing. They next contend (B) plaintiffs’ claims are untimely. Then they claim (C) plaintiffs’ claims are unexhausted. Finally, applicants contend (D) FDA’s actions are not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise contrary to law. We consider each in turn.

We begin with Article III standing. To bring their claims in federal court, plaintiffs must satisfy the familiar tripartite test: they must show they suffered an injury in fact, that’s fairly traceable to the defendants, and that’s likely redressable by a favorable decision. See Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871 (1990). Importantly, only one plaintiff needs to have standing to present a valid case or controversy. See ''Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Institutional Rts., Inc.'', 547 U.S. 47, 52 n.2 (2006).

Plaintiffs and the district court offered numerous theories of standing. At this preliminary, emergency stage, we are unpersuaded by applicants’ contentions that all of these theories fail to create a justiciable case or controversy. We need only consider two: (1) injuries to doctors and (2) injuries to the plaintiff medical associations.