SCOTUS Monday and Standing

This morning was an order list release day at the U.S. Supreme Court. No decisions were issued and no new criminal cases were taken. The court took up a case on admiralty law and choice-of-forum clauses in contracts.

The court turned down a case on standing in an Establishment Clause case. We are interested in standing here at CJLF because we sometimes represent victims of crime seeking to have the perpetrators punished according to the judgment, and such efforts are frequently challenged by saying the victims have no standing.

City of Ocala v. Rojas deals with the special rules of standing in cases where plaintiffs claim that the government engaged in activities that amount to an establishment of religion. Many years ago, the Supreme Court loosened the rules in this class of cases, evidently concerned that if they defined standing in the usual way a host of government endorsements of religion would be effectively immune from challenge because no one has standing. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch both opine that the standing rules need to be reconsidered in light of changes made in the underlying law of the Establishment Clause, though they disagree on whether this case at this time is when and where that issue should be considered.

CJLF takes no position on Establishment Clause issues. Our cases, however, also involve issues where if the victims do not have standing no one does. These are cases where the prosecutor goes over the hill and joins the perpetrator in supporting an action that we believe is illegal or where the executive has breached a legal duty to enforce a law. We will keep an eye on this.