Read on Twitter
Obviously the Austin case interests many people who aren't familiar with the legal jargon. Let's tackle standing here.
A person cannot sue in court without "standing." Standing means the person has the type of personal injuries our courts were designed to protect.
(1)
A person cannot sue in court without "standing." Standing means the person has the type of personal injuries our courts were designed to protect.
(1)
Our U.S. courts only resolve dispute that injure people. While that sounds obvious, it actually makes them different than courts other places.
Some courts, in other countries, will issue opinions about what the law is, even before someone injured by the law challenges it.
(2)
Some courts, in other countries, will issue opinions about what the law is, even before someone injured by the law challenges it.
(2)
By requiring personal injury, our courts take their place next to--not above--the legislature. Sure, when an injured party sues, the Court might need to nix a law. But there's no general power, without such a suit, to veto the laws enacted by the elected.
(3)
(3)
Example: If Washington state passes a law about affirmative action, my local chapter of interest group -either side--cannot show personal injury. So it cannot sue in Washington challenging that law. Neither group would have "standing" because it would have no personal injury
(4)
(4)
Today, you heard Judge Hanen say these politically connected plaintiffs had no standing because their injuries were merely "general" and "widely shared." And that they simply alleged an injury from the government "not following the law."
That's all correct. But
(5)
That's all correct. But
(5)
Be careful. If a state wrongfully imprisoned 5mil people, they would all have a common injury. Yet, each would also suffer her own personal injury. In other words, don't think standing eludes someone who is personally injured along with many others who are also similarly.
(6/7)
(6/7)
Standing can be personal, though widely shared.
Here, though, no voter or candidate or person alleged how some legal wrong caused concrete harm aside from "I want our government to follow the law."
Judge Hanen got it absolutely right.
(7/7)
Here, though, no voter or candidate or person alleged how some legal wrong caused concrete harm aside from "I want our government to follow the law."
Judge Hanen got it absolutely right.
(7/7)