A sensible, cautious, and careful opinion. It will probably drive Trump nuts.
A Personal Blog
by Michael Froomkin
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
My Publications | e-mail
All opinions on this blog are those of the author(s) and not their employer(s) unelss otherwise specified.
Who Reads Discourse.net?
Readers describe themselves.
Please join in.
- Michael on Didn’t Waste Much Time
- Just me on Didn’t Waste Much Time
- Truth Pants on Didn’t Waste Much Time
- S on A 2024 Freedom Agenda (ver. 0.1)
- C.E. Petit on Does Tripit Think I’m on a Watch List or Financial Sanctions List?
Subscribe to Blog via EmailJoin 2,772 other subscribers
stretching the third party standing doctrine to its outermost limits. i.e. equating the fact that schools have standing for students in some situations to schools having standing for aliens
10:1 the standing part of the decision holds up. States own universities, their universities have pled loss of specific students and employees, that is enough for direct standing. The third party stuff is needed for other parts of the order, but if the court correctly characterized the precedents it is not odd either.
I only thought that the third party standing analysis was odd, because I think there is a difference between students that are citizens being represented by a school when the students lack standing and aliens being represented by a school when the aliens lack standing…but not going to take a bet against you, even at 10:1…