Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
June 17, 2003
LAW: Is This New?

I'm not an expert in this particular area, and it may well be that I'm forgetting a case from my Federal Courts class that ruled on this point previously -- an interesting aspect of Justice Scalia's opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court yesterday in Virginia v. Hicks, which overturned a decision of the Virginia Supreme Court finding a statute overbroad under the First Amdendment, was the holding that Virginia had standing to bring the case to the U.S. Supreme Court based on its "injury-in-fact" in being unable to enforce the statute. The salient point here is that the state's standing to sue was determined at the time the case was brought into federal court, at the certiorari stage, rather than as things existed before the litigation was filed. This, of course, also relates to one of the side issues in Bush v. Gore -- i.e., the fact that the Bush campaign's standing to raise constitutional issues was determined on the basis of how things stood after the Florida Supreme Court's decision. The other interesting aspect of Hicks in this regard is the state having standing to defend its statutes in federal court, where it could not have enforced them in the first place.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:19 AM | Law 2002-04 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg