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.
Standing is not a legal barrier, it's a functional (unilaterally created) one. It's main purpose being to prevent taxpayer suits and therefore a level of suits that might be unmaintainable by the justice system (weak). So I may be mistaken but I don't believe though that the rules of evidence apply so that standing could be denied on the grounds as you hypothesized them. The question is whether the matter should even be heard as a "case" so I would think it would be odd to conduct it as if it were a case when making that determination.
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.
> 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.
Yes, except the article said the legitimate "rights holder" was unclear. In order to sue, the party doing the suing has to prove "standing" (which is the legal term for the party being harmed) and to prove that they have to prove they are the rights holder.
I was thinking that the cost of filing a motion to dismiss unless the plaintiff could prove they had standing would be relatively inexpensive. (say $50K - $100K in legal fees). Seems like one way to clear up the rights issue.
Not a lawyer, but… generally in the US you need “standing” to file a suit. That is, you have to show that somehow you have a material interest in the issue to be decided.
I couldn’t force a suit saying the FCC was required to do an environmental study, and they didn’t study the light reflected from SpaceX satellites so the approval for the satellites is invalid. I just don’t have any standing there. The US legal system being what it is “It is hurting my business, I am losing dollars.” is pretty good at providing “standing”.
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.
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.
That is exactly how you start a lawsuit, because filing a claim in the US system requires “standing”. It’s perfect if the plaintiff can point to clear examples of this kind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
reply