Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)


(52,103 posts)
Fri Jun 14, 2024, 12:13 AM Jun 14

There's a Time Bomb Hidden In the Supreme Court's Abortion Pills Decision [View all]



Distressingly, the opinion leaves breadcrumbs for these activists to follow next time—and sets up some roadblocks to keep progressive activists out. For example, Kavanaugh writes that plaintiffs who aren’t actually affected by a given regulation, like the AHM, can still “thread the causation needle” if they show that the parties who are regulated “will likely react in predictable ways that in turn will likely injure the plaintiffs.” The Court also clarified that an organization does not have standing merely if it “diverts its resources in response to a defendant’s actions.”

Why does this matter? The diversion-of-resources argument comes from a landmark 1982 case called Havens Realty Corporation v. Coleman, in which a fair housing organization sought to sue an apartment complex for its refusal to rent apartments to Black “testers”—people who posed as potential renters to test compliance with the law. The Court ruled in Havens Realty that the organization, although it wasn’t actually trying to rent apartments, nonetheless had standing to sue, in part because the realty company’s actions forced the organization to use its limited resources to ferret out illegal discrimination.

Kavanaugh’s opinion declines to extend standing to the AHM under Havens Realty. But he also goes out of his way to call Havens Realty an “unusual case” that the Court “has been careful not to extend…beyond its context.” If this language signals that the Court is looking skeptically at future diversion-of-resources claims, that could be bad news for civil rights groups trying to use the courts to enforce the law.

In a solo concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas comes out and says what Kavanaugh does not. In his separate opinion, Thomas takes direct aim at “associational standing”—the legal theory that allows organizations to sue for injuries suffered by its members. “Our associational-standing doctrine appears to create serious problems, both constitutional and otherwise,” he wrote, criticizing the Court having “never attempted to reconcile [the doctrine] with the traditional understanding of the judicial power.”

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»There's a Time Bomb Hidde...