The district court did not rule on the merits of the case and instead said Cato and Mackinac were not the right parties to bring it," said Sheng Li, a lawyer with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, in an email.
If that’s true, the headline is very misleading. Losing on standing is not the same as the plan being upheld. Other people are still able to challenge it in court.
If that’s true, the headline is very misleading. Losing on standing is not the same as the plan being upheld. Other people are still able to challenge it in court.
The thing about standing is that you often have nobody at all who has standing, which is effectively the same as upholding something.
Hasn’t stopped SCOTUS before!
Lmao right. Standing doctrine and ripeness doctrine have no chance against scotus when it benefits right wing loons