Who has standing to appeal Prop. 8 ruling?
August 16, 2010
Posted by Erwin Chemerinsky on articles.latimes.com:
"Ironically, it is a legal doctrine fashioned by conservatives that may provide a decisive victory to the supporters of marriage equality for gays and lesbians and end the litigation over California's Proposition 8.
"For decades, conservative justices on the Supreme Court have ruled to limit who has standing to bring a claim in federal court. In cases involving civil rights, environmental protection and the separation of church and state, the court has ordered that cases be dismissed because the party pursuing the case had no legal standing to do so.
... "Now, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — and, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court — could well rule that opponents of the freedom to marry have no standing to appeal U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker's decision striking down Proposition 8.
"Article III of the U.S. Constitution restricts federal courts to deciding 'cases' and 'controversies.' The Supreme Court long has held that in order to meet this requirement, a person or group pursuing legal action must have standing, a status conferred only on those who have suffered a direct, concrete injury. An ideological objection to a government action, no matter how strongly felt, is insufficient for standing.
"For example, almost 30 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that a person who had been subjected to a chokehold by Los Angeles police officers lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of that procedure because he could not show that he personally would be likely to be choked again.
"Just a few years ago, the Supreme Court held that no one had standing to challenge the George W. Bush administration's grant of funds to religious institutions to provide social services. The court stressed that no one was directly injured, even though there was a claim that this was an impermissible establishment of religion in violation of the 1st Amendment."
Click to read the full post: [Link]