Even Thomas and Alito couldn't sanction 'brain rot' of Mifepristone case: legal experts

Legal analysts were quick to lambast the anti-abortion doctors and organizations who filed a lawsuit to overturn the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of the abortion drug Mifepristone, which lost at the Supreme Court on Thursday.

The Court found that the group didn't have standing in the case, as they themselves never used the drug, which was a key point that the FDA argued in the case. It enabled the judges to agree unanimously in favor of the FDA, despite several judges being personally against abortion.

While Justice Clarence Thomas wrote his own concurrence that highlighted his conservative ideology, both he and anti-abortion Justice Samuel Alito both ruled that the plaintiffs in the case lacked standing to sue the FDA.

Many legal experts were quick to make jokes at Thomas' expense after the ruling.

Legal analyst and NYU law professor Melissa Murray said on X, "This decision preserves access to medication abortion... FOR NOW. There will be another case--with better plaintiffs--before the Court faster than Thomas can book a ride on Crow's private jet."

Yale Law professor Scott Shapiro made a similar joke on X, "Clarence Thomas concurs in Mifepristone case, arguing that the food sucked at the most recent Harlan Crow-funded luxury resort."

READ MORE: 19 fabulously worthless things Trump will give you for your money

Former top Justice Department prosecutor and NYU colleague Andrew Weissmann remarked, "A cynical person might think that the conservative Justices (who routinely ignore 'standing' doctrine when it suits them) did this to keep the entire issue of reproductive rights out of the election cycle (where vast majority reject what they are doing), so they can take a hatchet to them after November."

Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance replied: "This is the first time Justice Alito has found a group advancing a conservative policy he was aligned with didn't have standing, per a study I cited earlier this week in my newsletter. I'll dig out the link for anyone who is interested as soon as my flight lands."

She posted earlier on X that the ruling "kicks the substantive issue down the road for a plaintiff who actually has skin in the game, but people in states where abortion is still legal can breathe a sigh of relief--for now."

But conservative lawyer George Conway hit back at some of the insults delivered to the conservative judges: "Another result-oriented decision from a compromised, illegitimate court, right, my liberal friends?" He included a pondering and winking emoji.

Joyce Vance replied, "[To be fair], the case should have been kicked originally on standing grounds. Then there was that whole injunction thing. But we're good now," with a rolling-eyes emoji.

Legal analyst and podcaster Allison Gill responded, "They didn’t have standing. They’re waiting until they do. Then they’ll bring back the ol' Comstock act."

She commented on a similar point from a reply to her, "Respectfully disagree with this take. This case had no standing, despite what the 5th circuit did. SCOTUS will wait for a better case that passes muster to ban Mifepristone."

"Honestly man, what's your f--king argument here?" asked The Nation's legal commentator Elie Mystal. "It's okay for the Supreme Court to take bribes because sometimes they kick a case on standing that had no business getting to them in the first place and is only here because conservative brain rot rules the 5th Circuit?"