The supreme court’s abortion pill ruling isn’t the end of a fight. It’s the beginning | Moira Donegan

The justices unanimously rejected the mifepristone case on technical grounds. Their ruling is not the victory it may seem

On Thursday, the US supreme court unanimously ruled that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine - a sock-puppet group of fanatically anti-choice doctors and busybodies - lacked standing to sue in the group's challenge to the Food and Drug Administration's approval of mifepristone, the drug that is now used in more than 60% of American abortions. The court's decision may seem like the end of this battle. It's only the beginning.

The lawsuit in question had originally emerged from Amarillo, Texas, in a federal court that has become a destination for anti-choice litigants because Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee and the sole judge hearing federal civil cases in the district, is a militant anti-abortion activist. Kacsmaryk made news when he used to case as a pretext to issue a nationwide injunction revoking FDA approval of the drug. The fifth circuit court, a radically rightwing appeals panel which has jurisdiction over Texas and which has repeatedly sought to push the supreme court to new heights of anti-abortion extremism, upheld most of Kacsmaryk's ruling, but limited the case to challenges that the FDA made in 2016 and 2021 to make mifepristone more easily available.

Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist