We wade into a hotly contested subject this week: standing law under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The cases by which we address that subject are about more mundane issues—abortion drugs and transgender transitioning in public schools—so we mostly ignore them. First, IJ’s Andrew Ward takes us to the rough-and-tumble Fifth Circuit where a group of doctors are challenging the FDA’s approval of a drug, resulting in a somewhat eyebrow-raising opinion (in more ways than one, but we focus on standing) where the bounds of a cognizable injury seem more expanded than normal. Then IJ’s Kirby Thomas West brings us to the Fourth Circuit where a group of parents challenge a school district’s gender transition policy. That leads to a result civil rights lawyers are more used to—a court excusing itself on standing grounds. What does this portent for the future of standing law? We have no idea, but we speculate about original meaning.

Click here for episode transcript

Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA

John and Jane Parents v. Montgomery County Board of Education

Clapper v. Amnesty International

R.E.M. – Stand