• njm1314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    7 months ago

    That’s a misleading headline. They didn’t preserve anything. They are basically saying the plantiffs didn’t have grounds. They’ve left the door wide open for another challenge.

    • FireTower@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’ll be a hard time finding another plaintiff with propper standing in a case on this question, given the nature of the medicine.

      Even if they were to get standing, saying the government not restricting something that may cause harm is actionable seems like a tough position to attend. Especially given this line in the opinion:

      Moreover, the law has never permitted doctors to challenge the government’s loosening of general public safety requirements simply because more individuals might then show up at emergency rooms or in doctors’ offices with follow-on injuries. Citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions