And, a corollary, when a court dismisses a case for lack of standing, does the decision generally indicate what sort of party might have standing?
This is vaguely related to the various emoluments clause lawsuits in the news, but is a more general question. It seems to be an open question whether the courts will consider those cases.
Is there a legal principle along the lines “a law that no one can bring a suit to enforce is invalid, so there must be some party that has standing to do so”?
Define terms.
Some actions are reserved for governments.
SCOTUS is the original authority on certain actions - State on State, IIRC, is one such case.
IOW: if your “one” is a natural person, then there are things over which he has no standing.
I don’t think that’s an answer to my question. You’re saying, “for a given law X, party Y might not have standing”. And then you give several examples of classes of laws for which certain types of parties can’t have standing.
I’m asking, “Can there be a law X for which there is no party Y that has standing?”
IANAL, but my layman’s understanding of “standing” is that the law has injured you in some way, and you want the courts to do something about it.
A law that doesn’t hurt anyone would be a law that nobody had standing to challenge. Is that what you mean?
Regards,
Shodan
I think the question needs some help.
Specifically, we need to capture both the law, and the type of challenge.
For example, let’s imagine a federal law prohibiting sales of alcohol to those under 25 years of age.
You won’t have standing to challenge the law as unconstitutional if you’re over 25, if your challenge is based on, “Well, that’s an unfair rule.” But if you’re a liquor store owner, you can challenge it by pointing out specific figures about your sales to 21-24 year olds and how much revenue you have lost.
If you’re under 25, you have standing to challenge it based on the simple allegation that you want to buy alcohol and cannot.
So the key for standing is to ask, “Am I personally and particularly harmed by this law?”
Generalized harms (“I don’t want to live in a country that would treat 21 year olds this way!”) is not sufficient.
So, with that said, sure. “The Congress of the United States declares that June 15, 2017, shall be known as David Rose Day in honor of composer David Rose (1910-1990).”
I can’t imagine anyone with standing to challenge that law.
David Rose stole my lunch in 1978! I protest this glorification of a known ham and cheese (aged Swiss, no less) sandwich thief![sup]*[/sup]
[sup]*[/sup] Not a real event and no offense intended to the family of the deceased.
You’ve got standing to sue the estate of David Rose for the value of your sandwich*, but not for suing the government about David Rose Day.
(*I mean, the statute of limitations for petty conversion would probably have run out, but whatever.)
If you change it to “The Congress of the United States declares that June 15, 1987, shall be known as David Rose Day in honor of composer David Rose (1910-),” would David Rose himself have grounds to bring a lawsuit if he could argue that it caused him damage to be honored by Congress? Maybe something along the lines of he was a highly anti-establishment artist and being endorsed by Congress would reduce the value of his work, so there’s specific damages to claim.
What if it’s already been legislatively declared “Jophiel is Awesome Day” and I feel that having it be David Rose day diminishes my brand?
Who would have standing to sue if there are violations of the Emoluments clause’s prohibition on accepting foreign titles?
Or a follow up question: if we leave the timeline as it was, could the current owners of the rights to the work be considered to have standing for similar reasons?
I guess my question is: I assume there are guidelines about how tenuous the connections are. What are some typical examples of those guidelines?
Am I right to take from these replies that it is impossible to frame a law such that no one would have standing to challenge it, ie there will always be someone to claim that they have standing because the particular law affects them adversely?
People can always claim they have standing, but that’s not the same thing as actually having standing. You can go into court and argue that the law affects you adversely, but the courts may respond that no, it doesn’t, or it doesn’t to the extent that you would need to have standing to challenge it.
There’s no law (other, perhaps, than the US Constitution) where absolutely nobody can ever claim to have standing. But there could certainly be laws where, in practice, nobody has sufficient standing to bring an action. Bricker suggests a law declaring 15 June 2017 as David Rose day, and other posters have hypothesised facts which might form grounds for a challenge (David Rose is still alive; the day has already been dedicated in honour of someone else still living). But, in reality as opposed to in hypothesis, if those facts do not prevail they cannot give rise to any standing. And we could go further and imagine a law which has not been repealed but which has long since exhausted any practical effect it ever had, e.g. a law dedicating 15 June 1817 to some person or purpose.
How about the Terri Schiavo case?
Yes, it IS Florida, but how did someone get stature to interfere in a medical decision?
End-of-Life, brain dead, family wanted to turn off life support.
Some “Judge” decided that a bunch of morons could demand she be kept on respirator indefinitely.
After she died anyway, her brain was found to have atrophied.
Miscarriage in the first degree.
I don’t see how anyone may claim to be damaged by that.
The Schiavo case was basically an intra-family dispute.
Terry Schiavo’s husband and legal guardian wanted to disconnect the feeding tubes. Terry Schiavo’s parents, devout Catholics, demanded that the feeding tubes be left in place. While it is true that many outside groups supported and financed the parents, they were nominally still one of the parties to the law suits.
And, while the court battles were proceeding, the Florida legislature passed a law giving Governor Jeb! Bush the authority to intervene and order the feeding tube to be reconnected. In another series of lawsuits, the Florida Supreme Court declared the law to be unconstitutional.
The republic is damaged by that. The Attorney General would presumably have standing to sue (though the practical likelihood of his doing so is presumably small). But, realistically, this is one of the constitutional provisions more apt for enforcement by Congress through political action than by individuals through a court. If the people elect a Congress that won’t enforce it, I’m not sure the courts are well positioned to save the fools from the knaves they have elected.
AFAIU, the damage has to be specific. How, specifically, is the “republic” damaged by that?
No standing is required for that.
To frame a law that no one would have standing to challenge would be framing a law that doesn’t affect any one or any business. Which is the opposite of what laws are designed to do.