Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z Document 137 Filed 04/07/23 Page 13 of 67 PageID 4435
diverted valuable resources away from advocacy and educational efforts to compensate for the lack of information. See ECF No. 1 at 91. Such diversions expend considerable time, energy, and resources, to the detriment of other priorities and functions and impair Plaintiffs’ ability to carry out their educational purpose. Id. at 92; N.A.A.C.P. v. City of Kyle, Tex., 626 F.3d 233, 238 (5th Cir. 2010).[1] Similarly, Plaintiffs allege their efforts to respond to FDA’s actions have “tak[en] them away from other priorities such as fundraising and membership recruitment and retention.” ECF Nos. 1-4 at 6, 1-5 at 11. Consequently, Plaintiffs have re-calibrated their outreach efforts to spend extra time and money educating their members about the dangers of chemical abortion drugs. Combined, these facts are sufficient to confer organizational standing. See OCA, 867 F.3d at 612 (finding organizational standing even where the injury “was not large”); Fowler, 178 F.3d at 356 (injuries in fact “need not measure more than an ‘identifiable trifle’”) (internal marks omitted).
- 3. Plaintiffs’ alleged Injuries are Concrete and Redressable
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ theories of standing “depend upon layer after layer of speculation.” ECF No. 28 at 20. But Plaintiffs allege FDA’s chemical abortion regimen “caused” intense side effects and significant complications for their patients requiring medical intervention and attention. ECF No. 7 at 13; see id. (“The harms that the FDA has wreaked on women and girls have also injured, and will continue to injure, Plaintiff doctors and their medical practices.”); id. at 14 (“The FDA’s actions have placed enormous pressure and stress on Plaintiff doctors during these
- ↑ It is true that Plaintiffs must allege their activities in response to the challenged actions differ from their “routine” activities. See, e.g., City of Kyle, 626 F.3d at 238. But Plaintiffs have done so. For example, Plaintiffs argue they conducted independent studies and analyses of available data to the detriment of their advocacy, educational, and recruitment efforts. ECF No. 1-8 at 8. The Fifth Circuit has found diversionary injuries to constitute injuries-in-fact even where it was less clear the plaintiffs diverted from routine activities. See Ass’n of Cmty. Orgs. for Reform Now v. Fowler, 178 F.3d 350, 360 (5th Cir. 1999) (injury-in-fact where organization regularly conducted voter registration drives and “expended resources registering voters in low registration areas who would have already been registered” if not for the challenged actions).
13
