would be if it had included “due to lack of standing.”
Are they supposed to lay out the whole story in the headline? It captures the gist of it.
Actually, everybody who's commented on this post is wrong.
The entire story, not simply the headline, is "misleading," given the posture of the case that was before the Supreme Court.
The reality is, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had originally affirmed U.S. District Court's ruling, in which the District Court had found in favor of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which had challenged the FDA's action at issue here. The FDA then sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court earlier granted. That's the very reason why the FDA was the petitioner in this case and the Alliance was the respondent.
With its decision today, the Supreme Court overturned, unanimously, the Fifth Circuit's decision, finding that the Alliance didn't have standing to bring its original action in the first place. In the view of the Justices, both the District Court and the Fifth Circuit had gotten their "standing" analysis wrong.
So the entire thrust of this story -- i.e., that the Supreme Court today "rejected a challenge to the abortion pill mifepristone" -- is rather off. What the Court did was reject the Alliance's claim that it had standing to bring its (originally successful) challenge in the first place.
I don't think this reflects any intentionality on the part of NBC News. Rather, I suspect that it simply shows that reporters today have no better understanding of what's going on here than the typical Freeper poster.