Document Type
Response or Comment
Publication Date
2023
Publication Information
137 Harv. L. Rev. 153 (2023)
Abstract
From the Introduction
In the last Term at the United States Supreme Court [2022], standing was the critical question in several major cases: the two challenges to the Biden Administration’s first student loan forgiveness plan, Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown, as well as the challenge to the Administration’s immigration priorities in United States v. Texas and the race-discrimination challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act in Haaland v. Brackeen. Standing has featured heavily in journalistic coverage of the decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. And standing may have been the reason for the Court’s stay of a lower court decision about the legality of the abortion drug mifepristone. ... Although the new state standing has transformed the federal courts and reshaped their relationship to the executive branch, these transformations might prove temporary. This past Term at the Supreme Court saw what seems to be a deliberate turn by the Justices away from expansive conceptions of state standing. But it remains unclear whether the Court grasps the larger purpose of having a doctrine of standing, and whether it internalizes that purpose or treats standing doctrine as a box to be checked.
Recommended Citation
Samuel L. Bray & William Baude,
Proper Parties, Proper Relief,
137 Harv. L. Rev. 153 (2023).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/1524
