Legislative Standing and/After Bost
Trust is earned, not demanded.
Another Steve Vladeck essay, about Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections and how it fits (or doesn't) with the court's jurisprudence on standing.
I tend to think that standing doctrine is far too restrictive (How much litigation there should be is a policy question, not really the proper domain of the courts. But it has seemed to me that courts prefer to limit the volume of litigation by limiting standing in marginal cases). So I was happy with the outcome in Bost, but had the same frustration that the court expands standing in this case while restricting it in other areas.
Trust is earned, not demanded.
Another Steve Vladeck essay, about Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections and how it fits (or doesn't) with the court's jurisprudence on standing.
I tend to think that standing doctrine is far too restrictive (How much litigation there should be is a policy question, not really the proper domain of the courts. But it has seemed to me that courts prefer to limit the volume of litigation by limiting standing in marginal cases). So I was happy with the outcome in Bost, but had the same frustration that the court expands standing in this case while restricting it in other areas.
Legislative Standing and/After Bost
Trust is earned, not demanded.
Another Steve Vladeck essay, about Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections and how it fits (or doesn't) with the court's jurisprudence on standing.
I tend to think that standing doctrine is far too restrictive (How much litigation there should be is a policy question, not really the proper domain of the courts. But it has seemed to me that courts prefer to limit the volume of litigation by limiting standing in marginal cases). So I was happy with the outcome in Bost, but had the same frustration that the court expands standing in this case while restricting it in other areas.
0 Comments
0 Shares
136 Views
0 Reviews
