this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
56 points (93.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7239 readers
638 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I do not get how these 6 states were determined to have standing in the first place? Isn't the whole US justice system predicated on the fact that you need to experience direct or indirect harm, be an actually involved party for you to be able to sue? They're federal loans, so federal money, where does their standing come from?
Doesn't this set the precedent that you don't have to be directly or indirectly harmed? I feel like this is the most dangerous part of the ruling and I haven't seen much discussion about it.
Imagine someone gets injured at a restaurant, so they could file a suit for negligence. But instead, I sue the restaurant, even though I wasn't there and I'm not related or involved. Isn't that what they just opened up?
It definitely opens the door for a lot more frivolous litigation, though you could state that Texas kicked that door open with their vigilante abortion laws...