Who Will Be Left Standing in the Supreme Court? by Linda Greenhouse
'The Trump administration is doing its best to kick plaintiffs out of lawsuits it opposes.
Pop quiz No. 1: What do the following have in common: an abortion clinic in Louisiana; the county of El Paso, Tex.; and two individuals who don’t want to buy health insurance?
Answer: All are plaintiffs in federal court.
The Hope Medical Group for Women, in Shreveport, La., is the petitioner in the June Medical case now at the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of Louisiana’s latest effort to shut down the state’s few remaining abortion clinics.
El Paso County is suing the Trump administration to stop construction of a new section of border wall on its southern border with Mexico that will be paid for in part by siphoning off millions of dollars that Congress intended for a project at the Fort Bliss Army base, the county’s biggest employer and economic engine. This case is not yet at the Supreme Court, but is most likely headed there.
And Neill Hurley and John Nantz, the two men who object to being told to buy health insurance? They and a group of red states led by Texas are in the Supreme Court defending the lower courts’ conclusion that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, which no longer carries any penalty for noncompliance, is unconstitutional.
Pop quiz No. 2: Which of these are the only plaintiffs that the administration’s lawyers are not trying to throw out of court?
Answer: The ones who don’t like Obamacare. . .
This is a column about standing to sue. It may seem an oddly dry choice of topic with a presidential impeachment about to get underway and the world flying apart at an even faster pace than usual. But as I hope these current examples show, standing is a crucially important component of the power of the federal courts. Judges must dismiss a lawsuit that lacks a plaintiff with standing. In the cases I’ve listed, contested questions of standing are playing out in the shadows. I want to hold them up to the light. The picture is not a pretty one. It could go far to defining the current Supreme Court term.'>>>
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/opinion/supreme-court-trump.html?
