3 ms·

Is there any chance that another party with standing will bring a similar case?

spondylosaurus 2y ago
Not to jinx it, but it seems unlikely. You'd think anyone with a leg to stand on would've come forward already (or been sought out by the plaintiff) for this suit.
- bbor 2y ago
  I think they’re saying they’ll change the argument, not find people to support it. E: I love how I’m always wrong about law, even when it sounds simple… [other claimants that we expect to try again] were able to intervene as plaintiffs at the lower court level
- Spivak 2y ago
  This isn't always the case, but you're right it's pretty odd to go through with this case on such shaky ground. It's almost surely because they couldn't find anyone better, many of these cases wait until you find the perfect plantiff and it can take a lot of time/money searching. They would have to be in a very sympathetic court to get the ruling they want given the harm they're trying to demonstrate. It makes no sense that medical procedures should be banned because other doctors might be asked to treat complications. That's how literally every medical intervention works.
  - spondylosaurus 2y ago
    Yeah, that reasoning would have crazy implications. No one's allowed to get surgery anymore because you might catch MRSA while you're recovering in the hospital afterwards... no medication because you might have a side effect or allergic reaction....
healsdata 2y ago
Yes. "[Erin Hawley, one of the group's lawyers] is hopeful the underlying lawsuit can continue because three states -- Idaho, Missouri and Kansas -- have brought their own claims and have different arguments for standing"
bbor 2y ago
This a bigger question than you’ll get an answer to on a forum I fear, but I may be pessimistic. Ultimately this court is somewhat infamous for their recent decisions on standing, especially when striking down Roe. My expert lawyer friend who’s never been known to just make stuff up, Mr. GPT esq., suggests that the primary culprits would be injured patients, consumer advocacy groups on behalf of injured patients, or competitors alleging unfair approval processes. Otherwise… I mean, theoretically, a priest could bring a suit on the grounds of “the presence of abortion in my country will make god angry with me” and win, with the right judges to hear them out…
- gnicholas 2y ago
  I don't recall an outcry about standing when Dobbs was decided (and as a lawyer, I am attuned to such things). Looking at the wikipedia page for Dobbs, [1] there's hardly a mention of it. Perhaps you're thinking of the student loan forgiveness cases, which raised this question? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Hea...
  - bbor 2y ago
    Thanks for the quick correction! You are, of course, completely correct.

Not to jinx it, but it seems unlikely. You'd think anyone with a leg to stand on would've come forward already (or been sought out by the plaintiff) for this suit.

bbor 2y ago
I think they’re saying they’ll change the argument, not find people to support it. E: I love how I’m always wrong about law, even when it sounds simple… [other claimants that we expect to try again] were able to intervene as plaintiffs at the lower court level
Spivak 2y ago
This isn't always the case, but you're right it's pretty odd to go through with this case on such shaky ground. It's almost surely because they couldn't find anyone better, many of these cases wait until you find the perfect plantiff and it can take a lot of time/money searching. They would have to be in a very sympathetic court to get the ruling they want given the harm they're trying to demonstrate. It makes no sense that medical procedures should be banned because other doctors might be asked to treat complications. That's how literally every medical intervention works.
- spondylosaurus 2y ago
  Yeah, that reasoning would have crazy implications. No one's allowed to get surgery anymore because you might catch MRSA while you're recovering in the hospital afterwards... no medication because you might have a side effect or allergic reaction....

healsdata 2y ago

Yes. "[Erin Hawley, one of the group's lawyers] is hopeful the underlying lawsuit can continue because three states -- Idaho, Missouri and Kansas -- have brought their own claims and have different arguments for standing"

bbor 2y ago

This a bigger question than you’ll get an answer to on a forum I fear, but I may be pessimistic. Ultimately this court is somewhat infamous for their recent decisions on standing, especially when striking down Roe. My expert lawyer friend who’s never been known to just make stuff up, Mr. GPT esq., suggests that the primary culprits would be injured patients, consumer advocacy groups on behalf of injured patients, or competitors alleging unfair approval processes. Otherwise… I mean, theoretically, a priest could bring a suit on the grounds of “the presence of abortion in my country will make god angry with me” and win, with the right judges to hear them out…

gnicholas 2y ago
I don't recall an outcry about standing when Dobbs was decided (and as a lawyer, I am attuned to such things). Looking at the wikipedia page for Dobbs, [1] there's hardly a mention of it. Perhaps you're thinking of the student loan forgiveness cases, which raised this question? 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Hea...
- bbor 2y ago
  Thanks for the quick correction! You are, of course, completely correct.