Digital Commons Network^™

Held V. State, Alec D. Skuntz

Public Land & Resources Law Review

On March 13, 2020, a group of 16 Montana children and teenagers filed a complaint in the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County against the State of Montana and several state agencies. These young Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants for their complicity in continuing to extract and release harmful amounts of greenhouse gases which contribute to climate change. Plaintiffs premised their argument on the Montana Constitution’s robust environmental rights and protections. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss which the District Court granted in-part and denied in-part. Held provides a roadmap for future litigation by elucidating …

Baby & Bathwater: Standing In Election Cases After 2020, Steven J. Mulroy

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

The current consensus among commentators is that the flood of cases challenging the 2020 presidential election results was almost completely meritless. This consensus is correct as to the ultimate result, but not as to the courts’ treatment of standing. In their (understandable) zeal to reject sometimes frivolous attempts to overturn a legitimate election and undermine public confidence in our electoral system, many courts were too quick to rule that plaintiffs lacked standing. These rulings resulted in unjustified sweeping rulings that voters were not injured even if their legal votes were diluted by states accepting illegal votes; that campaigns did not …

Manufacturing Sovereign State Mootness, Daniel Bruce

William & Mary Law Review

The idea that public defendants should receive any special treatment in the mootness context has been subject to intense criticism among commentators. Most notably, in the lead-up to the New York Rifle decision, Joseph Davis and Nicholas Reaves—two prominent First Amendment litigators from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty—urged the Supreme Court to take the opportunity to correct the lower courts’ practice of blessing government abuse of the voluntary cessation doctrine. Indeed, the Supreme Court has never adopted a presumption in favor of government defendants such as the one applied by the Seventh Circuit in Killeen, and it failed to …

Third-Party Standing And Abortion Providers: The Hidden Dangers Of June Medical Services, Elika Nassirinia

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

Standing is a long held, judicially-created doctrine intended to establish the proper role of courts by identifying who may bring a case in federal court. While standing usually requires that a party asserts his or her own rights, the Supreme Court has created certain exceptions that allow litigants to bring suit on behalf of third parties when they suffer a concrete injury, they have a “close relation” to the third party, and there are obstacles to the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests. June Medical Services, heard by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2020, …

Missing The Mark: Nysrpa As A Vehicle To Clarify Inconsistencies In Mootness Doctrine, Leila Hatem

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Federal mootness doctrine is far more confusing than helpful. Riddled with inconsistent jurisdictional outcomes, mootness doctrine lacks a unitary theoretical approach. This confusion results because the Court has historically characterized elements of the doctrine as either prudential or constitutional. Because the Court has reached the merits of otherwise moot claims, its doctrine is neither completely prudential nor constitutional. Rather, it is a messy hodge-podge of both.

This Note analyzes New York State Riffle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. The City of New York (“NYSRPA”) in light of this dichotomous framework and assesses how the opinion engages with the …

California V. Texas: The Denouement Of The Affordable Care Act's Legal Challenges?, Rachel Sereix

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In February of 2018, Texas and nineteen other states filed suit against the federal government seeking to have the entire ACA struck down. In the consolidated case California v. Texas, the Court is considering four questions: First, whether Texas and the individual plaintiffs have standing to challenge the individual mandate; Second, whether the Tax Cut and Jobs Act renders the individual mandate unconstitutional; Third, whether the rest of the ACA can stand even if the mandate is unconstitutional; Finally, if the entire ACA is found invalid, whether the Act should be unenforceable nationwide or whether it should only be unenforceable …

The Evolution And Jurisprudence Of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court And Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Of Review, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The past eight years have witnessed an explosion in the number of publicly-available opinions and orders issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. From only six opinions in the public domain 1978–2012, by early 2021, eighty-eight opinions had been released. The sharp departure is even more pronounced in relation to orders: from only one order declassified during 1978–2012, since 2013, 288 have been formally released. These documents highlight how the courts’s roles have evolved since 2004 and reveal four key areas that dominate the courts’ jurisprudence: its position as a specialized, Article III …