4 ms·

Can you file suit if you don't suffer damage?

by 99_00 6y ago

jcranmer 6y ago
Broadly speaking, you need to demonstrate actual harm to bring a suit. Theoretical harm isn't sufficient, and the US Constitution explicitly prohibits bringing non-live cases before SCOTUS (Case or Controversies clause).
- tekknik 6y ago
  So does this not answer why the suit was filed after the fact? With just the new laws in place, nobody can suffer damage until they actually suffer damage no? Doesn’t Trumps loss mean damage for TX given the oil industry?
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    > Doesn’t Trumps loss mean damage for TX given the oil industry? That is exactly the kind of "theoretical" harm that is routinely slapped down by courts as unactionable. In general, harm must be direct and specific, not indirect or generalized. Biden could move to push for legislation to combat climate change that harms the oil industry, but until that legislation is enacted, no harm has been suffered, and no suit could be brought to remedy that harm until that point, since it is only theoretical and speculative until then. > So does this not answer why the suit was filed after the fact? No. There are a couple of mechanisms that will let you challenge election procedures before an election. I'm shaky on the actual legal justification behind it, but my recollection is that it is based on the idea that a voter experiences harm when the election procedure denies them the right to vote, even if an election has not actually been conducted that would deny them the vote. I should point out that there was an awful lot of election procedure litigation prior to the election, with heavy media coverage, which was mostly not shot down due to lack of standing or lack of controversy, so it is not reasonable to be surprised that this pathway exists.
    - tekknik 6y ago
      So then suing for threats shouldn’t be a thing? But yet it’s quite easy to find various articles, including suits against Trump, for threatening damage.

Can you file suit if you don't suffer damage?

by 99_00 6y ago

Can you file suit if you don't suffer damage?

Broadly speaking, you need to demonstrate actual harm to bring a suit. Theoretical harm isn't sufficient, and the US Constitution explicitly prohibits bringing non-live cases before SCOTUS (Case or Controversies clause).

tekknik 6y ago
So does this not answer why the suit was filed after the fact? With just the new laws in place, nobody can suffer damage until they actually suffer damage no? Doesn’t Trumps loss mean damage for TX given the oil industry?
- jcranmer 6y ago
  > Doesn’t Trumps loss mean damage for TX given the oil industry? That is exactly the kind of "theoretical" harm that is routinely slapped down by courts as unactionable. In general, harm must be direct and specific, not indirect or generalized. Biden could move to push for legislation to combat climate change that harms the oil industry, but until that legislation is enacted, no harm has been suffered, and no suit could be brought to remedy that harm until that point, since it is only theoretical and speculative until then. > So does this not answer why the suit was filed after the fact? No. There are a couple of mechanisms that will let you challenge election procedures before an election. I'm shaky on the actual legal justification behind it, but my recollection is that it is based on the idea that a voter experiences harm when the election procedure denies them the right to vote, even if an election has not actually been conducted that would deny them the vote. I should point out that there was an awful lot of election procedure litigation prior to the election, with heavy media coverage, which was mostly not shot down due to lack of standing or lack of controversy, so it is not reasonable to be surprised that this pathway exists.
  - tekknik 6y ago
    So then suing for threats shouldn’t be a thing? But yet it’s quite easy to find various articles, including suits against Trump, for threatening damage.