# Is it possible for no one to have standing to bring a lawsuit under a law? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 15, 2017, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-for-no-one-to-have-standing-to-bring-a-lawsuit-under-a-law/789045 "2017-06-15T17:44:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-for-no-one-to-have-standing-to-bring-a-lawsuit-under-a-law/789045/21 "2017-06-16T01:55:55Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > 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](http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/23/schiavo/) 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. Also worth pointing out that the standing requirement arises from Art III and binds the federal judiciary. Specific states may or may not have similar limits. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-for-no-one-to-have-standing-to-bring-a-lawsuit-under-a-law/789045/22 "2017-06-16T01:58:47Z")
The best example of a constitutional provision which no-one has standing to sue on is the guarantee of republican governments for the states (Article IV, s. 4). > **[Article Four of the United States Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution)** > > Article Four of the United States Constitution outlines the relationship between the various states, as well as the relationship between each state and the United States federal government. It also empowers Congress to admit new states and administer the territories and other federal lands. > The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to extend "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records and court proceedings of other states. The Supreme Court has held that this clause prevents state... In the 1840’s there was a serious political crisis in Rhode Island, with two competing state governments. Some citizens of Rhode Island challenged the legitimacy of one of the competing governments, arguing that it violated the constitutional guarantee of republican state governments. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court. In _Luther v Borden_, the Court held that the republican guarantee was a political commitment for the elected branches of government, not the judicial branch. Since the courts lacked jurisdiction, no-one had standing to sue under the guarantee clause. > **[Luther v. Borden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_v._Borden)** > > Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (1849), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the political question doctrine in controversies arising under the Guarantee Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution (Art. IV, § 4). > Martin Luther was part of the Dorr Rebellion, an attempt to overthrow the charter government of Rhode Island that had stymied the efforts of those who wished to broaden the voting rights of state residents. The rebellion began as a p... Whether the courts would treat the emoluments clause in the same way is an interesting question. I don’t know if te issue has ever arisen? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-for-no-one-to-have-standing-to-bring-a-lawsuit-under-a-law/789045/23 "2017-06-16T02:07:23Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > AFAIU, the damage has to be specific. How, specifically, is the “republic” damaged by that? Seriously? The republic has a chief executive who is discharging his duties while subject to a conflict of interest and duty which the Constitution, for reasons which are too obvious to need elaboration, forbids. The potential for corruption, which the Constitution seeks to avoid, is created. The confidence of the people in the chief executive of the republic is diminished. The Constitution confers upon Congress the role of determining whether the acceptance of the emolument is proper; the Presidents frustrates this by not seeking the consent of Congress to the acceptance of the emolument concerned, thus attempting to avoid the exercise by Congress of its constitutional role. This is a further ground upon which the people’s confidence in the chief executive may be diminished - and also their confidence in the Congress, if it does nothing proactive to discharge its constitional functions with regard to emoluments. All of this diminishes the credit and creditworthiness of the institutions of the republic, which is a Bad Thing. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-for-no-one-to-have-standing-to-bring-a-lawsuit-under-a-law/789045/24 "2017-06-16T02:11:02Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Seriously? The republic has a chief executive who is discharging his duties while subject to a conflict of interest and duty which the Constitution, for reasons which are too obvious to need elaboration, forbids. The potential for corruption, which the Constitution seeks to avoid, is created. The confidence of the people in the chief executive of the republic is diminished. The Constitution confers upon Congress the role of determining whether the acceptance of the emolument is proper; the Presidents frustrates this by not seeking the consent of Congress to the acceptance of the emolument concerned, thus attempting to avoid the exercise by Congress of its constitutional role. This is a further ground upon which the people’s confidence in the chief executive may be diminished - and also their confidence in the Congress, if it does nothing proactive to discharge its constitional functions with regard to emoluments. All of this diminishes the credit and creditworthiness of the institutions of the republic, which is a Bad Thing. 1. “Specific damage”. What you wrote is very much non-specific. 2. The question I was responding to was “Who would have standing to sue if there are violations of the Emoluments clause’s prohibition on accepting foreign titles?”. Read it again. Then if you feel you need to write a rant, at least write one that is relevant to the question. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-for-no-one-to-have-standing-to-bring-a-lawsuit-under-a-law/789045/25 "2017-06-16T16:48:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. Ok, that certainly makes sense. The law you mentioned is kind of… inconsequential? What about a law that actually required some action on the part of some entity, or prohibited some action? That is, a law that had some real-world effect. Could there be such a law that no one had standing to challenge? ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-for-no-one-to-have-standing-to-bring-a-lawsuit-under-a-law/789045/26 "2017-06-16T17:01:17Z")
> [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](#): > > Who would have standing to sue if there are violations of the Emoluments clause’s prohibition on accepting foreign titles? My guess would be standing members of Congress since the clause explicitly gives Congress the ability to grant or hold permission. If the president simply ignores Congress on the topic, Congress is harmed by having its constitutional power diminished. ---
**Author:** ![sitchensis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sitchensis/32/4892_2.png) [@sitchensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sitchensis)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2017, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-for-no-one-to-have-standing-to-bring-a-lawsuit-under-a-law/789045/27 "2017-06-16T17:23:32Z")
From my understanding, you have to participate in the NEPA process to have standing later on. So in theory, a EIS could happen with zero comments and no parties would have standing after the decision was reached. Doesn’t mean someone couldn’t sue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-possible-for-no-one-to-have-standing-to-bring-a-lawsuit-under-a-law/789045.md?page=1)