Read on Twitter
Ok quick thread on Standing b/c I’m seeing magical legal experts pop up claiming SCOTUS was wrong to deny Trump Standing. SCOTUS was 100% right.
But even when Trump had Standing, he lost dozens of court cases on the merits.
So, what is Standing?
1/3
But even when Trump had Standing, he lost dozens of court cases on the merits.
So, what is Standing?
1/3
“Standing” isn’t a “little thing” like Trump claims. It’s critical. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes
In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992), SCOTUS created a 3-part test to determine if a party has Standing to sue
You need all 3
2/3
In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992), SCOTUS created a 3-part test to determine if a party has Standing to sue
You need all 3
2/3
For Standing, Plaintiff must:
1) Have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning concrete & actual/imminent
2) Show a causal connection between injury & the conduct
3) Show it’s likely, not just a guess, that a favorable court decision will cure the injury
SCOTUS dismissed TX b/c
3/4
1) Have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning concrete & actual/imminent
2) Show a causal connection between injury & the conduct
3) Show it’s likely, not just a guess, that a favorable court decision will cure the injury
SCOTUS dismissed TX b/c
3/4
Aside from 0 evidence of mass voter fraud—TX cannot possibly show harm by how PA MI GA or WI ran their own state elections.
The remedy of nullifying the elections doesn’t redress anything. It undoes the will of voters.
SCOTUS is right. TX & Trump have no Standing.
9-0.
4/4
The remedy of nullifying the elections doesn’t redress anything. It undoes the will of voters.
SCOTUS is right. TX & Trump have no Standing.
9-0.
4/4
