We Need Better Rules on Standing

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Late last year, Texas federal district court judge Reed O’Connor ruled that Obamacare was unconstitutional. His reasoning was absurd: because the fine for not having insurance has been reduced to $0—for the time being—it means the individual mandate no longer exists. And since the whole law is based on that, the whole law is now unconstitutional.

Naturally, this has been appealed. But today, the 5th Circuit asked for briefs on whether anyone actually has standing to appeal:

This sort of thing happens too frequently, and the Supreme Court needs to say something about it. It wouldn’t have to overturn decades of jurisprudence about standing, it would just need to slightly liberalize the terms under which states and legislatures can say that they’re affected by a lower court ruling.

I mean, can you imagine what would happen if this were allowed to stand? It would bless the strategy of forum shopping to find a reliably anti-Democratic judge to invalidate Obamacare nationwide, and would then prevent any higher court from hearing an appeal. No democracy can support something like this.

In the end, even if standing were disallowed, I suppose some blue state somewhere would forum shop for its own judge, who would then hand down the opposite ruling. At that point, higher courts would have to take on the substance of the case whether they liked it or not. But it’s still no way to run a railroad.

FACT:

Mother Jones was founded as a nonprofit in 1976 because we knew corporations and the wealthy wouldn't fund the type of hard-hitting journalism we set out to do.

Today, reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget, allows us to dig deep on stories that matter, and lets us keep our reporting free for everyone. If you value what you get from Mother Jones, please join us with a tax-deductible donation today so we can keep on doing the type of journalism 2020 demands.

payment methods

FACT:

Mother Jones was founded as a nonprofit in 1976 because we knew corporations and the wealthy wouldn't fund the type of hard-hitting journalism we set out to do.

Today, reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget, allows us to dig deep on stories that matter, and lets us keep our reporting free for everyone. If you value what you get from Mother Jones, please join us with a tax-deductible donation today so we can keep on doing the type of journalism 2020 demands.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate