Standing

[chuckles] If it's not the same as standing, isn't it, like, sort of like, uh, equitable?

Uh, I mean, maybe.

So the-- As standing has become-- Standing used to be equitable, and then standing became constitutionalized.

And so then as it became constitutionalized, the court had to make it less equitable 'cause it didn't think that the Constitution could be equitable.

And ripeness, the court has both said ripeness and standing are basically the same, which would imply that it's also constitutionalized.

...

the, uh, faculty-edited journal that, uh, Justin Driver and David Strauss and I, and until recently, Jeff Stone, all co-edit.

And it has a amazing article in it by Richard Re: called The Standing Realignment-

And that's the harm that she claims.

So I wanna be clear about what standing does.

Standing means that the case can just begin in federal court.

It doesn't mean that the National Trust would win its case or lose its case.

Got it.

Now, what's interesting is the majority, and by the way, Amy Coney Barrett, to her credit, she was in the majority.

The majority said, among other things, that this person of the historic trust and so on didn't even have standing Standing to bring the case.

Roberts and the three radical Democrats on the court said, "Sure she does, because she's part of the historic trustee, and she's used to the White House being the way it is, and she's offended by this, and she feels damag-- Ladies and gentlemen, if that's the new standard for standing, we all have standing all the time." Right? See what I mean, Rich? How can that be standing? You have to have really a direct causal damage, not, "You know what? He really damaged me because, I mean, he used to think the White House sits way, and it's now it's that way." That's not standing.

And by the way, if Roberts had his way, you would destroy separation of powers.

The question is, Steph, will they? You know, this earlier debacle in the courts over the ballroom, the reason the challenge was unsuccessful wasn't because what Trump was doing was legal necessarily.

It was because the court held that the people that had sued didn't have standing to sue.

Standing is a legal doctrine.

You've got to have sufficient level of harm to be entitled to bring a lawsuit.

And the court said that the folks who filed that lawsuit weren't.

It's a near total plaintiff win on the demurrer with four of five causes of action surviving, including the SIPA pen register theory.

State courts may be less receptive to federal Article III standing is really kind of the point of this one.

Standing seems to be a lower standard in state court.

Some judges believe that just merely alleging merely alleging a statutory violation, meaning a technical statutory violation, is sufficient to establish standing and even need to go as far as what federal courts do, which is there's got to be some harm beyond just simply a statutory violation.

And the other thing is that state courts tend to simply not get involved upfront with consent arguments about whether the person consented or not based on the consent architecture of the website, whether or not that can be judicially noticed or not.