*NOTE: I will use gun control as an example here but this is not a thread to debate gun control policy. *
Imagine some state wants to make it really hard to buy a gun. Being a constitutionally protected right they cannot outright ban the sale of guns so the state seeks to put so many roadblocks in place as to make obtaining a gun extremely difficult.
However, each law, if challenged by itself, is deemed by a court to not be too onerous and not a violation of your constitutional rights. Taken together though they add up to a substantial hurdle to buying a gun.
Can an individual go to court and challenge the collected laws as adding up to an unconstitutional burden on their rights? Or are they stuck challenging one law at a time?
I believe that is exactly what Mr. Heller did when he sued Washington D.C. He picked out three laws (I forget which three) and said that those laws together denied him a right to self-defense.
Typically, these laws would follow some common denominator, right? Like Jim Crow, abortion laws, or whatever? So if SCOTUS or a court strikes down one law based on x, then other laws with the variable of x would be dead.
Maybe I misunderstood the question.
But let’s take abortion as an example: there are some states with serious roadblocks to abortion but abortion still (mostly) legal. But let’s say someone takes it to SCOTUS that states can’t restrict the right of child-bearing women, even minors, to get an abortion. If SCOTUS agrees, then it may invalidate other related laws on the books that deal with minors and abortion.
I think.
Your Cause of Action is based on the right you were denied by the individual facts, not collective.
A Court will not entertain one otherwise. Heller was cited above, and as the “Question Presented” for Certiorari ONLY dealt with DC’s gun ban, the question of Incorporation to the states was not decided.
You can of course file suit with many COA’s, this does not mean the Court will entertain all. You can’t sue for a right not denied, where is the “Injury”.