Standing is Key in Abortion Arguments - Students' Precedent

WASHINGTON - March 26, 2024 - PRLog -- Standing, the legal ability of an organization to bring and to succeed in a law suit to challenge an agency's actions, seems to be a key and possibly a decisive issue in the mifepristone case being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, especially based upon the opening questions propounded by several of the justices.

In response to questions, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar began today's oral argument in FDA v. AHM with standing, arguing that the plaintiffs' argument is based upon an attenuated chain of causation that fails to satisfy the requirements of Article III standing.

But, notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who was able with his law students to win an equally challenging Supreme Court standing case, even difficult standing cases can be won with imaginative pleading and oral arguments.

In the famous S.C.R.A.P. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Students_Challenging_Regulatory_Agency_Procedures) [United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures] case, Banzhaf and his law students faced a damning Supreme Court precedent holding that even the Sierra Club did not have legal standing to challenge an agency decision which harmed the environment.

So when he and his students tried to challenge an agency decision where the harm alleged (to establish standing) was more diffuse and attenuated, most commentators thought it was a sure loser.

But the students in SCRAP were successful against all odds, and Banzhaf cites the case as an example of how students, with appropriate encouragement, can bring and win important cases, and establish valuable precedents in legal areas such as standing - in contrast to most law school instruction today.

Corporate Crime Reporter explains "How Five Law Students Challenged Corporate Power" (https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/neil-prot...)

http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf