Therefore r r h has article iii standing problem 2

This preview shows page 19 - 21 out of 34 pages.

. Therefore, R, R, & H has Article III standing. Problem #2: Moore v. Trump Model Answer The issue is whether Moore has Article III standing to sue Trump for violating the 4th Amendment and Emoluments Clause . Article III requires a concrete and particularized injury in fact; fairly traceable to the allegedly unlawful conduct; and redressable by a favorable judgment. Moore has clearly not suffered any concrete or particularized injury fairly traceable to Trump’s conduct that could be redressed by a favorable judgment. His only injury is an abstract ideological grievance. Therefore, he lacks Article III standing. Problem #3: Nelson v. Collins IRAC Arguments for Government Text (Argument that plaintiffs are not imminently threatened with injury -- i.e., that their injury is not “certainly impending” nor a “substantial risk”) Precedent (How is this case similar to previous cases (for our purposes, Clapper ) in which the Court has found insufficient injury for standing?) Arguments for the Steel Mills Text (Argument that plaintiffs are imminently threatened with injury -- i.e., that their injury is “certainly impending” or at least a “substantial risk”) Precedent (How is this case different from previous cases in which the Court has upheld congressional delegations? How is it similar to cases in which Congress has invalidated such delegations) Takeaways
Lovelace 20 Article III standing is the most important doctrine defining what decisions can be made by courts and which must be left to the political process The basic idea is simple: Abstract questions affecting large numbers should be decided by democratically accountable institutions; questions affecting particular individuals in special ways should be decided by courts Article III standing requires: 1. A concrete, particularized, and imminent injury; 2. Caused by the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct; 3. Redressable by a favorable judgment An imminent injury is one that is certainly impending or involves a “substantial risk” of harm Clear in principle; many difficult questions of degree Review Day 22 1. What type of injury must a plaintiff allege to establish Article III standing?
2. What is an imminent injury?
3. Aside from injury, what other two requirements must a plaintiff meet to establish Article III standing?
4. How does Article III standing relate to the question of institutional choice?
Day 23 First Amendment Brandenburg Quiz Day 23 1. What is the main question of institutional choice in any individual rights case?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture