The Supreme Court Tuesday let stand a ruling that an Illinois man could not act on his own to reverse a federal court decision if he had not been involved in the case at the outset.

The high court let stand a decision that precluded an individual not involved in an initial court battle from stepping in later and trying to enforce a provision of state law he claims would prohibit experimentation on fetuses.A federal district court in Illinois ruled last year that a section of the Illinois Abortion Law, which prohibited the sale of or experimentation upon a human fetus unless it is "therapeutic" to the fetus, was unconstitutionally vague.

The law had been challenged by doctors who treat infertile couples. They said it could put the legality of some widely used fertilization techniques into question.

The state of Illinois refused to appeal the decision, but Andrew Scholberg, a private citizen, sought to challenge the finding on his own behalf and the class of unborn babies in the state.

The district court refused to allow the appeal, and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later agreed that Scholberg had no standing to continue the suit.