Effect of the Newdow case on the precedential value of the Ninth Circuit decision

[Ilya Somin]

OK, point taken.

Ilya Somin



On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, David Cruz wrote:

>
> But of course, the Supreme Court did not hold that Newdow lacked
> *constitutional* standing; Stevens's opinion for the Court relied on
> prudential standing doctrine.  So, the black letter law Ilya describes
> does not resolve the issue.
>
> David B. Cruz
> Professor of Law
> University of Southern California Law School
> Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071
> U.S.A.
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Ilya Somin wrote:
>
> > Eugene and Howard are more expert in these matters than I am. But it seems
> > to me that lack of constitutional standing by the plaintiff necessarily -
> > as a matter of black letter law - creates a lack of subject matter
> > jurisdiction in the federal courts. Therefore, any opinion reversed for
> > lack of standing has no precedential effect, because the lower court had
> > no jurisdiction to issue it in the first place. I'm not a big fan of
> > modern standing doctrine, and I think, even within the confines of that
> > doctrine, there was a close case on the issue of whether or not Newdow had
> > standing. However, it seems to me that the elimination of any precedential
> > value possessed by the 9th Cir. opinion is a necessary result of the
> > Supreme Court's decision, at least under current standing law.
> >
> > Ilya Somin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>