An open issue in the standing discussion
Comments
Hmm. Then perhaps what should change is not the standing analysis, but rather the Younger analysis. Maybe this isn’t one of the three types of proceedings that should warrant abstention.
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Jun 19, 2014 5:36:46 PM
Whether or not that should be true about likely administrative *enforcement* proceedings, the administrative proceedings here were not for purposes of enforcement — the Commission could not itself order any sanction (as I understand it). They were, instead, basically a preliminary step that Ohio established before the real enforcement proceedings — criminal prosecution — could kick in. That’s why the Court was reluctant to say that the prospect of administrative proceedings standing alone would be enough for standing purposes. More here: http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/commentary-susan-b-anthony-list-clapper-footnote-5-and-the-state-of-article-iii-standing-doctrine/
Posted by: Marty Lederman | Jun 19, 2014 12:18:21 PM