[quote=“thunderbolt23, post:1121, topic:215570, full:true”]
I’m arguing that standing for a third party is not nearly as clear-cut as you posit, and it isn’t a foregone conclusion that a citizen could sue for an injury to himself based on a ban on someone he knows that would be affected by it.[/quote]
As is clear, he himself is affected by it. Courts accept injury-in-fact on much less than “no, you can never again fly your British daughter to see you over the summer, because she’s Muslim, so every single time you see her hereafter, you’re going to be leaving the country” – and it is useless to pretend otherwise. Concrete, particularized, and actual – three straightforward checks. But to the broader point, I am not saying that it is a foregone conclusion; I am saying that the evidence suggests it’s very likely.
And you did not begin this debate with anything remotely so careful as “it isn’t a foregone conclusion.” Your first substantive post on the matter, in fact, availed itself of the line “can’t happen” (that’s from memory, so if I’m wrong I accept blame). Whether it’s relevant that you have grown less confident in your position while I have grown more confident in mine is a question I leave open.
[quote]
Yesterday you conceded you didn’t understand standing, but now you want to claim the issue is a done deal. It’s not. And your distinction re: DP doesn’t provide a difference. Well, it wouldn’t to the person you’re relying on - Laurence Tribe:[/quote]
I believe that I said that I didn’t know anything about standing. What I meant was that I had not studied it in anything like the depth I’d need to in order to answer the question you opened our correspondence with; it turned out that I was not alone in this. But I’m a very quick study. As for DP as an analogy, and without delving into Tribe’s view of DP, let’s be clear that, no, I wasn’t relying on him, but I was invoking him in conjunction with all the other prominent legal scholars who plainly disagree with you re: standing in this particular context, and I was particularly impressed by the fact that whether they were liberal or conservative or libertarian, whether they were optimistic or skeptical about an EC challenge to Trump’s ban, they seemed to agree that standing would not be an issue. This is far more than reliance on a single authority.
As for the rest of it, I may agree with or disagree with or not understand or simply not have considered any number of Tribe’s legal opinions, but when he and people who disagree with him see no standing issue, I am inclined to skepticism when I’m being told that standing would simply not be conferred. This is doubly true once I have myself read and cited the only SCOTUS case relevant to nontaxpayer Establishment Clause standing in the context (Valley Forge). My position was the only one of the two that cited and accommodated the actual SCOTUS precedent, and that precedent clearly bolsters my case. I have also read, and will proffer as requested, the case law by which specific injury tests determine standing in comparable EC cases (not really comparable, though, because the injury tends to be immensely less grievous than that we’re speculating about).