Examining the Issue of Legal Standing

The Rising Trend of Case Dismissals

In the last two decades, there has been a noticeable increase in the dismissal of court cases due to a lack of standing. The doctrine of standing, along with other Dismissal Doctrines, have been employed to deny people their fundamental right to petition the Government for redress of grievances. This means that access to courts for dispute resolution is being hindered. This issue is particularly relevant in light of the upcoming historic election, and is examined here in relation to a recent petition to the Supreme Court.

A Recent Petition to the Supreme Court

On October 16, 2024, a Petition for Writ of Mandamus concerning state election processes was filed in the Supreme Court of the United States. The petitioners, the FormerFedsGroup Freedom Foundation (FFF), served the petition to the respondents, the "50 States Secretaries of State". An expedited emergency review was requested. Bradford Geyer, the founder of the FFF, confirmed via text message that all Secretaries of State were served the petition by email on Thursday, October 17, 2024. The petition was also sent by certified return receipt requested, which they should have received by October 22, 2024.

Understanding the Writ of Mandamus

A Writ of Mandamus is an order from a court to a lower government official, instructing them to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion. The All Writs Act, established by an Act of Congress, gives the Supreme Court and all courts the authority to issue writs of mandamus.

The FFF's Petition

The FFF's petition requests the Supreme Court to instruct all 50 states to implement "absolute voter identification, paper ballots and hand counting for the 2024 general elections". The FFF argues that there are serious issues with the current election system, including vulnerabilities in voter registration, voter verification, vote tabulation, vote reporting, mass media electioneering, and social media censorship. The petition provides specific evidence, such as compromised voter rolls, illegal aliens being registered to vote and voting, insecure voting machine software and hardware, and election workers being threatened and intimidated to certify results despite witnessing irregularities. The petitioners argue that the current system is so susceptible to corruption that unless the requested relief is granted, few will trust the election results, potentially leading to violence.

The Challenge of Standing

The main challenge the petitioners face is also a key issue in the ongoing erosion of civil society in America: the issue of standing. The Standing Doctrine is likely to be one of the Dismissal Doctrines used by some of the Secretaries of State in their Motion to Dismiss the FFF's petition. The Standing Doctrine has become a crucial issue in almost all civil cases in the United States. Former President Donald Trump often states that around sixty cases filed regarding the 2020 general election were dismissed due to a purported lack of standing. None of these cases reached the Discovery phase of litigation.

The Impact of Dismissals Due to Lack of Standing

Dismissals due to lack of standing allow societal issues to persist rather than be resolved in the courts. This leads to growing incivility and delayed or abandoned justice because disputes remain unresolved. The primary role of the courts is dispute resolution, particularly in "controversies", as outlined in Article III § 2 of the US Constitution. However, the courts have learned to evade the responsibility of decision-making by frequently allowing Dismissal Doctrines such as Qualified Immunity, Sovereign Immunity, Mootness, Ripeness, Laches, and Standing. The Standing Doctrine has been used and abused by defense litigators 20 to 30 times more frequently than the personal jurisdiction hurdle, which was one of the major civil procedure hurdles in the previous two centuries. This misuse of the Standing Doctrine infringes on the most fundamental right of American citizens: the right to petition the Government for redress of grievances in the context of a case or controversy.

The Potential Consequences

The Supreme Court's laissez-faire attitude towards controversial issues, including the FFF's attempt to secure the 2024 election processes, could lead to an irreparable divide in the United States. The relief sought in the FFF's petition may seem extreme to those who have become accustomed to the ongoing malfeasance in the US state election systems. However, the requested relief is far from extreme. It is a return to the foundational security and election integrity that worked efficiently in the United States for two centuries before the introduction of electronic election tabulation. A return to paper ballots and hand counting, as is done in France and Canada, is a return to basic security and election integrity.

Anticipating the Supreme Court's Response

It can be assumed that the Supreme Court's response to the FFF's petition for writ will likely include a dismissal motion for lack of standing. This could include theories of ripeness, lack of injury-in-fact, or the court's inability to redress the grievance. The petitioners are seeking to prevent any "ineligible" or "unverifiable" voter from voting. It is possible that the Court could agree with the respondents that it is impossible to achieve 100% compliance with the requested remedies, and therefore, redress is impossible. However, the petitioners' intention is to prevent any significant ineligible voter from voting. If the Court opts for a redressability dismissal motion based on the inability to achieve perfect compliance, they will be failing in their duty to the people and undermining their primary mission.

The Implications of Dismissal Doctrines

If the Supreme Court chooses to avoid hearing the FFF's petition, they will have to permit some type of Dismissal Doctrine, which will infringe on the most fundamental right in the US Constitution. The courts' primary mission is to hear cases and controversies. If the Supreme Court continues to avoid controversial issues, then the Republic cannot be held together. The legislative and executive branches will have unlimited power over the people if the people cannot bring cases against those branches because judges allow the Standing Doctrine as an excuse to avoid hearing a case involving controversial subject matter. This could lead to tyranny, followed by resultant incivility.

Exploring the Impact of Standing Doctrine

John Beaudoin Sr's Amicus Curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court in September 2024 discusses the macro and microeconomic results of the Standing Doctrine and explains the behaviors of judges and attorneys that result from the seminal cases involved. A forthcoming series of articles by Beaudoin will further explain the Standing Doctrine and other Dismissal Doctrines and highlight the importance of repairing or abolishing the Standing Doctrine in the United States court systems.

Bottom Line

The issue of standing is a complex and crucial one in the American legal system. Its misuse and overuse have significant implications for the fundamental rights of citizens and the functioning of the courts. As we approach a historic election, the question of standing becomes even more critical. What are your thoughts on this matter? Share this article with your friends and sign up for the Daily Briefing, delivered every day at 6pm, to stay informed on this and other important issues.