CA Supremes Give Standing to Prop Proponents to Defend Laws

[alphaboi867]

@John_Mace

What’s the debate? What is done is done.

This almost certainly will send the issue of SSM to the SCOTUS for final resolution. This could get messy.

Hows the effort to get a repeal on the 2012 going? If that were to pass then the case evaporates.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@David42

But then we’d have attorney generals who disagree with the initiative just going through the motions of pretending to defend it while their actual defense suffers.

They’d defend by conceding every point of the other side and then raising something frivolous as the defense.

I guess we’d better get rid of attorneys general completely and let legislators who sponsor enactments defend them, then. :rolleyes:

[Saint_Cad]

@pravnik

There may be a general feeling that there has to be somebody to enforce the laws that the government won’t, but I’m not so sure that the 9th and SCOTUS will see it that way - that argument hasn’t always flown in the past.

When the U.S. Congress tried to give standing over to private individuals and organizations to enforce the Endangered Species Act of 1973, SCOTUS knocked that provision down in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 505 (1992), saying that legislatively created standing wasn’t enough; the plaintiffs must show an injury in fact that is actual and imminent towards themselves, concrete and particularized towards themselves, not merely something affecting the voting citizenry at large.

There’s something I don’t understand. How can a court deny legislative standing? Congress create the courts (III, 1) and IMHO as a non-lawyer, the President has standing in all issues dealing with constitutionality as he is the only person charged by the Constitution as having a duty to defend it (II, 1, 8).

I understand the concept of common law and that the courts have a right and duty to put controls on who can sue for what - but why can’t Congress mandate procedures on inferior courts that they themselves created (SCOTUS is contitutionally a different beast). For me this legislative oversight is inherent in the Constitution in III,2,2

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Although this is about SCOTUS, To me this implies that Congress can regulate in what manner the courts hear cases and if they want to say “X has standing for violations of this law.” then the courts are obliged to follow.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Because of earlier bits of Article III:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Federal standing doctrine is based on SCOTUS’ interpretation (which has remained relatively consistent over time) of the “cases and controversies” language in Article III. No direct harm = no “case or controversy” [that the courts can fix].

pravnik’s post is a bit misleading; there’s nothing stopping Congress from expanding standing legislatively. The problem in Lujan was that the plaintiffs still had to show harm in order to fall under §7 of the ESA anyway.

[Saint_Cad]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Because of earlier bits of Article III:

Federal standing doctrine is based on SCOTUS’ interpretation (which has remained relatively consistent over time) of the “cases and controversies” language in Article III. No direct harm = no “case or controversy” [that the courts can fix].

pravnik’s post is a bit misleading; there’s nothing stopping Congress from expanding standing legislatively. The problem in Lujan was that the plaintiffs still had to show harm in order to fall under §7 of the ESA anyway.

So let’s say Congress were to pass a law that granted legislative standing. For the sake of argument call it the “Citizen Oversight Act” and in the act it said that any citizen could take a bureaucrat to court for not fulfilling their legal obligation (I know it is a horrible law but bear with me), would the courts have to recognize my standing to take the Secretary of Transportation to court to follow the (another madeup law) Imported Car Inspection law even if I don’t own an import?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

If you fall into some other category of person who would be harmed by that failure, yes. If you’re just some guy, no.

shrug Blame Scalia.