In recent years, conservative litigants have lost numerous cases on grounds of action. I have an article discussing this issue in the September issue national review (Print version titled “Stand Up”). Try it here:
FDA v. Hippocratic Medical Alliance It’s one of several cases in recent years in which conservative plaintiffs have brought conservative claims to the court, only to lose the lawsuit. There is also this word, in Murthy v. MissouriThe court concluded that social media users lacked standing to seek an injunction barring federal officials from pressuring social media platforms to suppress or remove unpopular speech as “false information.” Judge Amy Coney Barrett explained that regardless of any past wrongdoing by officials to suppress speech, the plaintiffs could not prove an imminent threat that the government would take necessary actions to justify the ban. .
atomic force microscope and Murthy Not an aberration. In recent years, courts have rejected conservative challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Affordable Care Act and the Biden administration’s immigration policies, all with merit. If some hoped (or worried) that a conservative Supreme Court would loosen longstanding barriers to policy-oriented litigation, they were sadly mistaken.
It should come as no surprise that the conservative Supreme Court insists on enforcing traditional trial rules. Strict standing rules have been a core element of conservative jurisprudence for decades. The current doctrine was shaped as much by the late Justice Antonin Scalia as by anyone else, and it was a priority of Chief Justice Roberts, who saw it as preventing political activists from using the courts to fight policy fights in their own right. a method.
The concept of standing is rooted in Article III of the Constitution, which limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to “cases” and “controversies.” The idea is that individual litigants should have a sufficient interest in the outcome of a legal dispute to justify the exercise of federal jurisdiction over their claims. As then-Justice Antonin Scalia explained in a 1983 law review article, “In more prosaic terms, it is a response to what happens when one person complains about another person The answer to the first question sometimes rudely asked when conducting: ‘What does this have to do with you?’ One must have a sufficiently tangible stake if one wants one’s arguments to be heard in federal court.
In this article, I also discuss some of the recent right-wing complaints about standing doctrine, including by Judge Kevin Newsom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. I have been extensively involved in the latter in my research wake forest law review Article “Standing Uninjured”.
Complaints about the status of the right, coupled with ongoing concerns about third party status, associational status, and statehood, leave the status doctrine primed for revision, and perhaps in ways that do not easily conform to the a priori or even linear character of the ideology. “easier” https://reason.com/ “harder”). I suspect that stand-up may become easier in some situations but more difficult in others. The next question is the current state of stand-up Whether critics will be satisfied with the end result I have my doubts.
