Comments
Standing issues were also present in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning. I note that every federal intermediate appellate court to address standing issues with respect appeals of lower court rulings striking down laws on this issue held that they had standing, and their conclusions were unanimous. It was not until the Supreme Court level that any jurist held to the contrary.
In this case, the standing of the governor and attorney general flowed from an injury to a protectable legal interest they held- namely their legal authority in “advising, supervising, and compellling the clerks and other state officials”. The district court’s judgment impaired their authority.
Note that the Court did not conclude that a principal-agent relationship existed between the governor and the clerk, or the attorney general and the clerk. Nor was it necessary for the Court to conclude whether such an agency relationship existed.
Posted by: Michael Ejercito | Jul 4, 2014 3:21:12 PM
I was unaware with the fact that they are responsible for advising, supervising, and compellling the clerks and other state officials.
Posted by: NSE BSE Tips | Jun 26, 2014 8:22:03 AM
Does getting the right defendant not bear on redressability?
Posted by: Asher | Jun 25, 2014 9:42:21 PM
That ultimately was the issue. But before they could get to whether the Gov and A/G could appeal, they first had to establish them as proper defendants. It somewhat circles back to standing to defend in the trial court, which was a lurking issue in both Windsor and Perry, where the district courts allowed intervention, but without really doing an Article III analysis.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Jun 25, 2014 9:00:46 PM
I admittedly read the standing part of the opinion pretty quickly, but I didn’t get the impression that it was about the plaintiffs’ standing at all, but rather about the appellants’ standing to maintain the appeal (similar to the issue in the Perry case). Did I totally miss the ball on it?
Posted by: Griff | Jun 25, 2014 8:32:46 PM