[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
The bigger issue with the FDA will be if a drug/food company sues them over a mandated safety procedure/requirement.
Not because I think it's the wrong decision. I thought it was incredibly obvious. So obvious that nobody could possibly have passed such a law unless they expected a partisan court to concoct a reason to back it.
At best I expected a 5-4 decision in favor of the right choice. Having all 9 justices make a decision that runs contrary to the ideology of a majority of them should make me question my belief that they will always choose ideology first and find a justification afterwards.
And yet... "lack of standing" is frequently used when they know they'll look bad, so they pretend the question doesn't actually exist.
This is an effect of media quite literally lying about the nature of the SCOTUS. The vast majority of cases they rule on are settled on apolitical lines. There has been a concerted effort in the past ~5 years to undermine the legitimacy of the court by trying to portray it as some hackneyed partisan legislature. Do some things get decided on political lines? Absolutely, but not any more than the SCOTUS has always handled these things.
Populists, both left and right, benefit from eroding the perceived legitimacy of independent institutions.
The cases that receive the most reporting are the ones that most affect people's lives. That's not bias on the part of the press. Nobody cares whether "the 60-day filing deadline in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) is not jurisdictional." (Harrow vs DoD). The press is accurately reflecting the cases that matter.
Some (e.g. the Strict Scrutiny podcast) have speculated that some cases are meant to make the SC look moderate, by giving them softballs to rule unanimously against the underlying ideological position they would normally uphold.
But they judges still pride themself about their position including their integrity. So especially for thing which are not very important fundamentals for their world personal political ideology they have been pushing a relative consistent approach where you can normally argue that it's a reasonable ruling if looking at it from a out of context perspective.
Like out of context the repelling of the previous supreme court decision wrt. abortion makes sense (laws should be made by the legislative organ not the jurisdicative organ and that ruling required a law to be made, which didn't happen). Through in context things are very different....
Also to be clear this applies to many but not all of their recent decisions.