"... and one of his aides attempting to force members of Congress and their staffs to stop getting subsidies for their health insurance under Obamacare."
Johnson, a Republican from Oshkosh, argued that members of Congress and their staffs were required to get insurance on their own under the Affordable Care Act, also widely known as Obamacare. But U.S. District Judge William Griesbach in Green Bay ruled Monday that Johnson and his aide, Brooke Ericson, didn't have legal standing to bring their case because they hadn't been injured.
Here's our discussion, begun earlier this morning, about the D.C. Circuit's Obamacare opinion, dealing with subsidies for people using the federal exchanges. There was a standing issue in that case too. There (
PDF) court found standing because one of the plaintiffs had an injury in fact that would be remedied by the relief sought from the court:
[David] Klemencic resides in West Virginia, a state that did not establish its own Exchange, and expects to earn approximately $20,000 this year. He avers that he does not wish to purchase health insurance and that, but for federal credits, he would be exempt from the individual mandate because the unsubsidized cost of coverage would exceed eight percent of his income.
In Ron Johnson's case, the district judge said that the plaintiffs basically received a benefit, not an injury, and rejected the argument that Johnson was injured because he was forced to figure out which of his staff members worked for his Senate office and because he was forced to participate in something illegal and it hurt his political reputation.
Posts
21 comments:
Good PR lawsuit by Senator Johnson. That man seeks out action like a trial lawyer does. But he is a businessman. A feisty one at that.
The injuries will come along soon enough and then it will be too late.
It is my understanding that any citizen who is aware of illegal uses of Federal money not only has standing but may also receive a percentage of recovered funds. I'm not sure why an executive agency making unauthorized grants would not be one of those cases.
Seems like I could legislate a coup so long as no one had "standing" to stop it...
Of course they've been injured. They're taxpayers, aren't they?
Where does the government find these judges?
What Fen said. This whole "standing" dodge is the reason behind Boehner's lawsuit. If Congress doesn't have standing, who does?
So a US Senator, directly affected by a law, who will be forced to take specific actions to their detriment against people on his staff, lacks standing because he will not personally "be injured" even as he is forced to screw over his employees against their will.
Who the hell exactly DOES have standing to oppose Obamacare in this country?!
If Obamacare gave $1B to the pope, who would have standing to sue? Nobody is "hurt" except, of course, the taxpayer.
It is incredible how few people who pontificate about the legal system understand that system.
"I am not am expert, I just play one on the internet" ... over and over and over again.
Johnson, a Republican from Oshkosh, argued that members of Congress and their staffs were required to get insurance on their own under the Affordable Care Act, also widely known as Obamacare. But U.S. District Judge William Griesbach in Green Bay ruled Monday that Johnson and his aide, Brooke Ericson, didn't have legal standing to bring their case because they hadn't been injured."
Who is the employer?
"If Obamacare gave $1B to the pope, who would have standing to sue? Nobody is "hurt" except, of course, the taxpayer."
There's a special standing doctrine for establishment clause challenges to taxing and spending.
Google "Flast."
OK Ann,
Suppose Obamacare gave $1B to Trojan Condoms, who would have standing to sue? Nobody is "hurt" except, of course, the taxpayer.
Ann Althouse said...
"If Obamacare gave $1B to the pope, who would have standing to sue? Nobody is "hurt" except, of course, the taxpayer."
There's a special standing doctrine for establishment clause challenges to taxing and spending.
Google "Flast."
7/22/14, 3:53 PM
Perhaps my reading comprehension is inadequate but googling Flast Jimbino might be right and Senator Johnson should have standing especially in light of Halbig.
Professor Althouse @ 3:53 PM:
That's too easy a dodge. Imagine the law gives $1BN to Ann Althouse. Who has standing to sue? What if Althouse doesn't want the money?
Ann,
There's a special standing doctrine for establishment clause challenges to taxing and spending.
Google "Flast."
Fine wrt the Pope. But suppose the beneficiary were instead, say, Angela Merkel. Or Vladimir Putin.
"That's too easy a dodge."
I'm not trying to dodge the issue. The Est. Cl. is a special case and the Pope was used in the hypo.
As for standing more generally, it's a serious issue and the fact that no one has standing sometimes is not an excuse for varying the limits on the judicial power. The federal courts have power only where there is a case or controversy. They resolve disputes between adversarial parties. They are not supposed to be activated by the legal questions alone. That is an important and longstanding part of constitutional law.
If the President exceeds his power and no one has standing, then the checks on the President are political. Otherwise the courts would be exceeding their power.
That answer was not a dodge. And I agree.
You might have missed the "spending power" issue such that the House would likely have standing contra the President if spending money.
That aside, did you consider, back in 2008, that the presidential candidate you supported would be so resistant to political pressure (because of identity politics) that you would be discussing whether a co-equal branch of government might -- in political reality -- be unable to call him into check? Do you see how radical what is happening is? Does that point to the radical candidate Obama fought so hard to conceal?
Let's take two cases with which I'm vaguely familiar.
Prop 8 in California barred same sex marriage. It became, by law, a part of CA's Constitution. When it was litigated the State refused, contrary to law, to defend it. When appealed the courts refused to hear it based on standing because the State didn't participate.
The ACLU sued the City of Los Angeles over the appearance of a small cross in the City Seal, acknowledging the significance of the missions in California history. The city eventually settled and the ACLU received legal fees - $25/hr rookies billed at $150/hr.
The standing doctrine can be mysterious at times.
Don't waste your time Birkel. Redheads don't apologize and blondes don't know they're wrong.
If the President exceeds his power and no one has standing, then the checks on the President are political. Otherwise the courts would be exceeding their power.
I don't get the "wasn't harmed" doctrine.
If EPA rules cause my energy bill to skyrocket, in what world am I not harmed?
If I feel health insurance is immoral for ANY reason, how am I not harmed by being forced to buy it?
I find it odd how Progressive groups are seldom hampered by standing issues.
In the case of Rob Johnson, he has to pick and choose amongst his staffers, causing discontent and harming him in doing his job. Also, he's a legislator and the bill is legislation that is being actively ignored. How is he not doubly harmed?
You only have standing if the harm you would suffer is a harm the left would recognize as such. Your RTKBA? Having that infringed or negated--not a harm. Your right to practice your religion? If it means doing things (or not doing things) they believe you must not (or must) do--no harm. The algorithm is simple once you understand the underlying principle.
Post a Comment