On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments You can also find out more about the following: Alliance Hippocratic MedicineThe mifepristone. AHM argued that it had no standing to challenge FDA actions. I think the plaintiffs are going to win. In fact, the Court’s decision has already been a foregone conclusion. A stay is granted The Fifth Circuit’s decision in April 2023. The question isn’t You can also check out AHM will lose, the question is How to get started. I would humbly suggest that the Court take this opportunity to correct several aberrations of standing law.

FirstThe Court should reclaim the so-called “diversion resource” standing that is based on Haven’s Realty. According to the theory of some lower courts, a group can claim Article III status by claiming government policy forces them to do something. Divert resource. The organization would normally spend its resources on X but due to a state action the organization now spends its resources to respond to that state action. This injury is entirely self-inflicted and goes against decades of established law. Some lower courts have accepted this theory as a legal challenge to Trump policies. I was able to. Hope The Supreme Court can address Havens Realty You can also find out more about the following: AchesonBut that’s not the case Fizzle out On mootness grounds.

During oral argument in AHMSeveral Justices addressed Havens Realty standing. Justice Barrett had earlier said that AHM was injured “soundly”.[s] In the meantime, Havens Realty Associational standing. Barrett added that this is the type of “allegations made by immigration advocacy organizations.” They claim “diversion of resource” in the form “increased expenditures that result from having to address” state action. Barrett asked Prleogar, the Solicitor General, to distinguish between “diversion” and Havens Realty.

Prelogar explains in detail what is meant by HavensThe civil rights group was “directly and concretely injured” by the diversion of funds. The organization had a contract for low-income housing and “the racial steerage practices directly interfered with” the “contractual obligation.” Prelogar said Havens Realty The “blessing” of the aforementioned was not “bless[] A theory of standing which would allow an organisation to assert a setback in its abstract social interest.” The Solicitor general acknowledged that “in immigration context”, some “lower courts have seemed to read Havens To endorse much broader theories of standing.” Prelogar stated that “we would appreciate a clarification from the Court on organizational standing.”

Erin Hawley representing AHM said Havens Realty The case was “on all 4s.” Hawley claimed that there was “a diminution of the organization’s missions” and “a waste of resources.” Hawley argued that this impairment was sufficient to prove a damage-in-fact. Justice Thomas said the reading of Havens Making standing “easy to produce” The organization only needs to “us[e] Hawley acknowledged that “the lower courts have cabined their decisions” and now claim that these expenditures “now cause an injury.” Hawley acknowledged “the lower courts have cabined Havens To say where you’ve had preludes to litigation type activities.” It is not sufficient to have diverted resources. Hawley stated that AHM’s actions “were neither a prelude to litigation nor would they have happened but for FDA’s illegal conduct in this case.” Justice Thomas did no return to the subject.

Justice Barrett turned away Havens Hawley. She asked, “What additional costs?” [AHM] How much you could have incurred [AHM’s] The resources were diverted so as to satisfy Havens“? Barrett pointed at AHM’s ability to conduct and analyze studies. Barrett replied: “Is that all?” Thomas and Barrett didn’t seem to be convinced.

Prelogar, during the Solicitor’s General’s rebuttal said that “clarify”, that Havens Realty “Every organization in this country” is not allowed. . . “Any federal policy they dislike.” I suspect progressive attorneys who are eager to challenge future Trump Immigration policies were gritting teeth when Prelogar said this comment.

SecondThe Court may cast some doubts on the so called “offended-observer standing” under Establishment Clause. I have long questioned How someone can claim standing for a challenge to a policy based on Establishment Clause based on being offended. Justice Gorsuch raised the issue in his American Legion The following are some of the reasons why you should consider hiring someone else. Gorsuch pressed SG Prelogar to address this issue. Prelogar attempted to deflect, and  “would put the Establishment Clause precedent and First Amendment precedent generally in its own bucket.” Gorsuch pushed Gorsuch. “Standing means standing.” Article III of the Constitution does not allow for a First Amendment exemption.

Gorsuch “was seeking some guidance” as to how to “stitch all of it together.” Prelogar acknowledged the “offense or distress” type of injury would “likely lead to allowing Article III courts weigh in on generalized grievances.” She said the Court had found that “a direct governmental act producing such a type of injury” was a “cognizable ” injury. I’m not certain that distinction is valid. Article III is not satisfied because “direct government action” offends someone. A concrete, actual injury must be proven. Cases like Van Orden The following are some examples of how to get started: American Legion The doctrines of the past are not consistent with current practice.

In the end, there will probably be more than enough votes for the Fifth Circuit to reverse. It is tempting, to write a 9 0 decision that finds some way to rule against AHM and not address these broader issues. It would be helpful for the Court or a majority of Justices to take a stand on the other theories of standing that are at play in this case. There is a unilateral disarmament that occurs when conservative litigants lose their cases, but progressive groups are allowed to sneak in. The Court can reject a broad reading of Havens Realty, and that emotional distress alone is not sufficient to establish a concrete harm.