Readers might recall that, in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, judges repeatedly dismissed pro-Trump election challenges on the basis of “standing”. That is, it was ruled that the parties bringing the lawsuits lacked “standing”.
This type of ruling has typically stymied litigation seeking conservative outcomes in the past. We have heard the “standing” claim repeatedly.
Here is an interesting point to consider. Let’s think about all the lawsuits that have been brought over the last few months in response to Trump’s executive orders, and the moves taken by his Administration.
How many of the suits against Trump have been dismissed on the basis of standing? It would be interesting to tabulate all the cases.
I suspect there have not been many.
I guess we must attribute the decline to having good conservative judges on the bench .
Pretty funny, Fred. There is one case Boasberg was recently assigned within the last week or so that seemed particularly egregious from the standpoint of “standing”.
Why “standing” matters: Plaintiffs (assisted by the NAACP and Common Cause) tried to sue over districts in which they did NOT reside.
“Consolidated Plaintiffs claim that North Carolina’s redistricting plans violate Section 2 of the [Voting Rights Act], the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fifteenth Amendment,” the three-judge panel wrote Tuesday. “In each instance, the alleged harm to any voter arises from the boundaries and composition of the particular district in which the voter resides. The voter therefore ‘has standing to assert only that his own district has been’ gerrymandered or malapportioned, or his own vote diluted.”
https://www.carolinajournal.com/judges-remove-districts-drop-other-claims-in-nc-redistricting-suits/
Jaycee, there is little question that “standing” matters. I suppose the question is whether judges are applying the “standing” rules fairly and consistently. I doubt that is the case.