As already noted, on June 13 the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, cutting back on standing for associations that say they have standing because the government policy they are opposing causes them to spend more money.
The very next day, June 14, Tennessee filed a notice of supplemental authority in Ashe v Hargett, m.d., 3:23cv-1256. This is the lawsuit filed by voting rights organizations against the Tennessee law that requires signs on primary day at the polls, warning voters they must not choose the primary ballot of a party they aren’t loyal to. The notice of Supplemental Authority filed by the state argues that this case must be dismissed because the plaintiffs don’t have standing.
Who would have standing, then?
If some voter who was very publicly not a Republican chose a Republican primary ballot, and that voter was criminally prosecuted, he or she would definitely have standing. Probably the government will not enforce the law, in which case no one would ever have standing.
LOYAL TO — HOW SO – BLOOD OATH ???
The whole concept of standing has become completely removed from any legal basis. It is now just used by politicized courts as an excuse to deny people their right to seek criminal justice and redress civil grievances.