I'm not a lawyer, and I don't completely understand, but my contacts are saying to hold off on 100% celebrating the standing decision. That the 3rd party standing decision isn't straight forward. So there might be a caveat for us suing on behalf of our patients, but not completely taken away. Which would be ugh.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't completely understand, but my contacts are saying to hold off on 100% celebrating the standing decision. That the 3rd party standing decision isn't straight forward. So there might be a caveat for us suing on behalf of our patients, but not completely taken away. Which would be ugh.
Thank you for sharing to inform everyone. Yes I'm still confused on what the actual ruling in regards to this is. If I get clarity I'll certainly update.
Thank you for sharing to inform everyone. Yes I'm still confused on what the actual ruling in regards to this is. If I get clarity I'll certainly update.
Thank YOU for your work, for being a healthcare provider in an awful time, and for bringing this up. ❤️
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't completely understand, but my contacts are saying to hold off on 100% celebrating the standing decision. That the 3rd party standing decision isn't straight forward. So there might be a caveat for us suing on behalf of our patients, but not completely taken away. Which would be ugh.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't completely understand, but my contacts are saying to hold off on 100% celebrating the standing decision. That the 3rd party standing decision isn't straight forward. So there might be a caveat for us suing on behalf of our patients, but not completely taken away. Which would be ugh.
The fight is for sure not over. But this is still so much better than I feared.
Yes agreed it could be a lot worse. Do you understand the ruling on the 3rd party standing?
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't completely understand, but my contacts are saying to hold off on 100% celebrating the standing decision. That the 3rd party standing decision isn't straight forward. So there might be a caveat for us suing on behalf of our patients, but not completely taken away. Which would be ugh.
It sounds like the ruling affirmed third party standing, although there’s a chance the court could rule differently in a future case.
From the ABC article: "In short, the State's strategic waiver and a long line of well-established precedents foreclose its belated challenge to the plaintiffs' standing," Breyer wrote.
The dissenters on the court, in the minority, disagreed with this.
The fight is for sure not over. But this is still so much better than I feared.
Yes agreed it could be a lot worse. Do you understand the ruling on the 3rd party standing?
Standing, generally, is designed to ensure that people in a lawsuit are affected by the issue so that disrupters who have time or money don't go around suing all willy nilly when they have no rights at stake.
This is what I understand from reading a little. I haven't had time to explore this fully.
So far as I understand, the critical question is do abortion PROVIDERS have standing to challenge laws restricting abortion. The state was arguing that the providers didn't have standing in their own right (even though under this law they'd be imprisoned if they were found to be in violation) but are raising claims on behalf of people who would receive abortions (raising claims on behalf of someone else is "third party standing"). That issue wasn't decided because the state raised that argument too late, procedurally, for the court to hear it. Third party standing is complicated, legally. Lots of questions about who suffers "injury in fact" and therefore is allowed to sue.
In this case, it's pretty obvious that the doctors had standing in their own right and the state was just being a total ahole being all **blink blink** but why wouldn't the women seeking abortions themselves just sue? But the fact that the state was focusing on this and trying to recast it as a standing claim is concerning because it's going to be a renewed line of attack. And, given how long cases take to wind through the system, if someone has to seek and be denied an abortion to sue on an abortion restriction law, finding plaintiffs will be enormously challenging.
It sounds like the ruling affirmed third party standing, although there’s a chance the court could rule differently in a future case.
From the ABC article: "In short, the State's strategic waiver and a long line of well-established precedents foreclose its belated challenge to the plaintiffs' standing," Breyer wrote.
The dissenters on the court, in the minority, disagreed with this.
This wasn’t the ruling on that issue, though. They didn’t actually rule on that issue at all.
Yes agreed it could be a lot worse. Do you understand the ruling on the 3rd party standing?
Standing, generally, is designed to ensure that people in a lawsuit are affected by the issue so that disrupters who have time or money don't go around suing all willy nilly when they have no rights at stake.
This is what I understand from reading a little. I haven't had time to explore this fully.
So far as I understand, the critical question is do abortion PROVIDERS have standing to challenge laws restricting abortion. The state was arguing that the providers didn't have standing in their own right (even though under this law they'd be imprisoned if they were found to be in violation) but are raising claims on behalf of people who would receive abortions (raising claims on behalf of someone else is "third party standing"). That issue wasn't decided because the state raised that argument too late, procedurally, for the court to hear it. Third party standing is complicated, legally. Lots of questions about who suffers "injury in fact" and therefore is allowed to sue.
In this case, it's pretty obvious that the doctors had standing in their own right and the state was just being a total ahole being all **blink blink** but why wouldn't the women seeking abortions themselves just sue? But the fact that the state was focusing on this and trying to recast it as a standing claim is concerning because it's going to be a renewed line of attack. And, given how long cases take to wind through the system, if someone has to seek and be denied an abortion to sue on an abortion restriction law, finding plaintiffs will be enormously challenging.
I love when the lawyers on this board can explain something in a way that I can understand it, lol.
Yes agreed it could be a lot worse. Do you understand the ruling on the 3rd party standing?
Standing, generally, is designed to ensure that people in a lawsuit are affected by the issue so that disrupters who have time or money don't go around suing all willy nilly when they have no rights at stake.
This is what I understand from reading a little. I haven't had time to explore this fully.
So far as I understand, the critical question is do abortion PROVIDERS have standing to challenge laws restricting abortion. The state was arguing that the providers didn't have standing in their own right (even though under this law they'd be imprisoned if they were found to be in violation) but are raising claims on behalf of people who would receive abortions (raising claims on behalf of someone else is "third party standing"). That issue wasn't decided because the state raised that argument too late, procedurally, for the court to hear it. Third party standing is complicated, legally. Lots of questions about who suffers "injury in fact" and therefore is allowed to sue.
In this case, it's pretty obvious that the doctors had standing in their own right and the state was just being a total ahole being all **blink blink** but why wouldn't the women seeking abortions themselves just sue? But the fact that the state was focusing on this and trying to recast it as a standing claim is concerning because it's going to be a renewed line of attack. And, given how long cases take to wind through the system, if someone has to seek and be denied an abortion to sue on an abortion restriction law, finding plaintiffs will be enormously challenging.
Ok thank you. So there was no decision on that part. Hence why some of my colleagues were saying we can't celebrate that part as a win yet. Got it. Thank you!