You can't not view the standing question together with the standing for the discrimination case, where the court ruled that the possibility of prior restraint that the government had not undertaken, over actions the plaintiff had not taken, in a business that they had not started, constituted an actionable tort/harm that gave plaintiffs standing.
The court is now allowing hypothetical harms, pre-crime. And the worst part is, we know that's not going to be evenly applied.
The old regime is being swept away, this is now The Terrors, where different groups of people receive a different process with a pre-determined outcome based on which group you fall into.
Even if you didn't like the court before, everyone got the same process, and that's different now. Nobody is even pretending there's any legal basis to these standings anymore. If you're in the right group, you can sue over harm to a business you didn't even start yet. You can sue for damage to someone else's business that you're not even a party to (as Missouri did).
> The question of when standing to sue exists is a question of common law, not statutory law.
Standing has both Constitutional elements and prudential elements (the latter could be referred to as "common law"); the actual injury element is Constitutional, but the prohibition on generalized rather than particular injury is prudential.
Here, a particularized injury is raised but the problem is that the injury is speculative rather than actual, so the problem would be with Constitutional requirements for standing, not the prudential elements.
You know this, I'm sure, but you don't even really have that; the Case or Controversy clause says you only get to sue if you can state a harm to yourself that has actually happened and a remedy the court can realistically and legally apply. The rules of standing are what prevents the Supreme Court from being a panel of philosopher-kings.
> so you have to prove you've suffered harm from the removal of your rights?
No, you have to be able to establish that you have had your rights violated. The standard that gets referred to as "harm" is more formally "concrete, particularized injury" where "injury" is defined as a violation of a legally-protected interest.
You don't have to prove, e.g., damages from the violation of your rights, but you can't just allege that an action is a violation of people's rights generally, and further that, as a person, you may have been impacted, so therefore you have standing to challenge the action. To have standing to sue, you have to allege with sufficient evidentiary basis that an action actually violated your rights in a concrete way.
There's also the court of public opinion to consider, in which actual legal standing is irrelevant. Small comfort if you successfully rebuff a suit but lose your reputation in the process.
Both standing and particularized harm are questions the court (properly) addressed in the context of the actual plaintiff (the public defender), not hypothetical plaintiffs that are situated differently.
There were also a whole host of other procedural issued cited in denying the appeal (including that it's an appeal, but the specific remedies claimed and the entities against whom they are claimed weren't argued properly in the trial court), in the non-exhaustive list of reasons for denial provided by the court.
Assuming the court isn't blatantly misrepresenting the procedural history, it looks like the plaintiff did, almost literally, everything possible wrong procedurally.
OTOH, I have to wonder if the intent isn't really to get the court to issue an order but to get headlines and media attention to force Alameda County to fix the problem.
They have standing because its a statutory tort and because and to the extent thar they allege the kind of action and injury that the statute makes compensable.
You seem to be imaging the kind of analysis done for a suit that is not based on a statute providing liability, but on a conflict of laws trying to negate or enjoin a government action for violating a controlling law that does not provide a explicit right of action to the plaintiff to sue, but that’s not necessary when a statute provides an explicit cause of action.
I don't think that's right. The question was one of standing, which means the plaintiffs haven't proven that they have legal grounds to bring the case. They haven't gotten the chance to show a FA violation yet.
Standing is like this. Let's say that you and your cousin start a business. And you decide that you get 3/4 of the profits, and your cousin gets 1/4. I decide that's unfair to your cousin. So I sue you, because that's unfair.
The courts don't care. They don't want to hear it. Your cousin can sue; I can't. The courts do not have time to deal with every possible thing that someone might think is wrong. You have to show that it harmed you.
Even if I had standing, it would never make it up courts because the oligarchy (judges) decide whether it is worthy or not. Just look at all the split decisions that SCOTUS leaves in place by declining to hear. Logically one of those two plaintiffs is being screwed.
This is a joke. You need standing to sue. You can’t sue unless you have actually suffered a harm.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court ruling on Crawford et al concerning FATCA; the 6th Circut overturned the precedent set by Susan B Anthony List v. Driehaus by adding a heightened requirement for standing; harm doesn’t need to just be credible to give rise to standing, it has to be credible AND certain.
Interestingly the recent 6th Circuit decision on Crawford gutted Roe v. Wade as well — essentially making the standing of any woman suing doubtful. Crawford rewrote the standing requirements of Roe v. Wade — and if applied to this current case, the cities will have the case thrown out because a harm from rising sea levels might be credible, but it definitely isn’t certain. That seas levels will rise at all is credible but also not certain. And beyond standing, the question is: did the oil company cause the harm? It could be argued that if an oil company caused a harm by supplying oil, Oakland and San Fran harmed themselves by using gasoline and oil for years and years themselves. So who is culpable? The addict or the dealer? How about city building codes that didn’t properly address the credible harm from rising seas? If such a harm were known and Oakland et al chose to ignore it and continue to issue building permits, then it casts doubt as to the credibility of that harm. If they issued a construction permit while being knowledgeable of the harm, they are negligent; if they don’t actually think it’s a harm enough to change building codes, then it’s obviously not harm enough to get paid by oil companies.
I realize that the 6th Circuit doesn’t apply to California, since they are in the 9th, but it’s highly likely Elena Kagen will grant Cert to the Crawford case — a case that’s going to have an incredible effect on standing requirements for lawsuits such as these.
Courts do not decide cases based on speculative future injury.
"To establish Article III standing, an injury must be "concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling." "
You will be able to serve but the court does not have standing, in spite of what the BUMA did with the pirate bay guys, which was a travesty of justice if there ever was one.
Unfortunately they didn't have the best of lawyers from what I've seen.
Suit has to be brought in the local court of the defendant, that's a pretty strong rule there and the lawyer seems to have failed to capitalize on that, instead concentrating on whether the serving was done properly.
By doing that he shifted the argument from one of 'standing' to one on whether they had had proper notice, implicitly acknowledging standing.
> On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a plaintiff must suffer a concrete injury resulting from a defendant’s statutory violation to have Article III standing to pursue damages from that defendant in federal court. The Court also held that plaintiffs in a class action must prove that every class member has standing for each claim asserted and for each form of relief sought.
"plaintiff not having standing" is one of the biggest bullshit aspects of American law. Unjust laws sit on the books being used to threaten and intimidate people, and only until some with the money, gall and the lack of anything to lose does a law get challenged. This person also needs to get charged under this law, which often not the case. The Justice System, knowing the rules, tries to never expose itself to a potential challenger.
1) Laws should pass a constitutional court before being put into place.
2) Anyone should be able to challenge a law. Period. Of course, those "with standing" should have more weight. But many clearly unconstitutional laws stand simply because of a lack of standing.
From my podcast law degree, in civil action like this yes. To get standing you must show you were harmed in some way and that the court can remedy that harm. That is just one of many parts of the standing test that a federal court will apply.
The court is now allowing hypothetical harms, pre-crime. And the worst part is, we know that's not going to be evenly applied.
The old regime is being swept away, this is now The Terrors, where different groups of people receive a different process with a pre-determined outcome based on which group you fall into.
Even if you didn't like the court before, everyone got the same process, and that's different now. Nobody is even pretending there's any legal basis to these standings anymore. If you're in the right group, you can sue over harm to a business you didn't even start yet. You can sue for damage to someone else's business that you're not even a party to (as Missouri did).
reply