Their reasoning is false. Government coercion of censorship affects everyone. Every voice has a right to be heard, even if nobody is listening. Every person has standing.
Their reasoning is false. Government coercion of censorship affects everyone. Every voice has a right to be heard, even if nobody is listening. Every person has standing.
"The provision of the Constitution usually cited as the source of standing requirements is Article III’s grant of federal judicial power, which gives federal courts jurisdiction over “all cases… arising under this Constitution and the laws of the United States.” It’s hard to see how this justifies the modern standing requirement that litigants must have suffered a past or imminent material injury caused by the statute they claim is unconstitutional. Nothing about the word “case” suggests that it is limited only to claims involving narrowly defined injuries. Even if you can’t have a “case” without such an injury, you can certainly have a “controversy” without it. And Article III also gives federal courts jurisdiction over “all controversies to which the United States shall be a party,” controversies between a state and citizens of another state, and controversies between citizens of different states."
Their reasoning is false. Government coercion of censorship affects everyone. Every voice has a right to be heard, even if nobody is listening. Every person has standing.
I agree. The issue of standing is often used in court to thwart election integrity cases, too.
Check this: Is Standing even constitutionally based? An interesting exploration from the Volokh Conspiracy.
https://volokh.com/2010/08/19/the-case-against-restrictive-constitutional-standing-requirements/
"The provision of the Constitution usually cited as the source of standing requirements is Article III’s grant of federal judicial power, which gives federal courts jurisdiction over “all cases… arising under this Constitution and the laws of the United States.” It’s hard to see how this justifies the modern standing requirement that litigants must have suffered a past or imminent material injury caused by the statute they claim is unconstitutional. Nothing about the word “case” suggests that it is limited only to claims involving narrowly defined injuries. Even if you can’t have a “case” without such an injury, you can certainly have a “controversy” without it. And Article III also gives federal courts jurisdiction over “all controversies to which the United States shall be a party,” controversies between a state and citizens of another state, and controversies between citizens of different states."