In recent times, attorneys general from liberal-leaning states have escalated their barrage of lawsuits against the Trump administration. The rampant surge of hasty injunctions, designed to obstruct the enforcement of presidential directives, seems like a tit-for-tat political game where the defeated party uses its state-level functionaries to pester the party holding the White House. This trend of states suing the federal government, which intensified from 2010 onwards, is not an indicator that these lawsuits hold equivalent gravitas or that they yield similar judicial responses.
Let us unpack a key element common to all such lawsuits the Democratic attorneys general will potentially file in the ensuing four years: the concept of standing. Legal standing is a principle that defines who has the right to file a lawsuit. A plaintiff intending to challenge a presidential decision must demonstrate a distinct, palpable harm beyond the collective disappointment or disapproval expressed by like-minded citizens regarding the decision’s worthiness.
The principle of standing is instrumental in lawsuits filed by states against the federal government. A case in point is the student loan forgiveness debacle. Back in the autumn of 2022, six states joined the legal battle opposing President Joe Biden’s plan to shift $430 billion in student loan debt onto taxpayers. Predictably, the main contention centered around whether the states, or any entity for that matter, possessed the legal standing to question the policy in a court of law.
At the time of the lawsuit filing, courts in other jurisdictions had already dismissed several cases due to lack of standing, prompting the Biden administration to revise its policy to deter potential plaintiffs. Consequently, a district judge initially discarded the states’ case, affirming that none of them fulfilled the criteria to challenge the loan transfer.
However, an appeals court later reinstated the case, determining that Missouri probably had standing because its state-run entity managed loans impacted by Biden’s directive. Interestingly, the Supreme Court justices did not readily accept that any party had standing, eventually dismissing the accompanying case as it found the plaintiffs in that case did not possess the standing to file a lawsuit.
In contrast, the concept of standing seems to be overlooked when it comes to litigation filed by liberal states represented by left-leaning attorneys general. One such case, spearheaded by New York, purports to hinder the Department of Government Efficiency from scrutinizing payment information held by the Treasury Department. While the claim merits some attention, it begs the question: Why are state attorneys involved in matters of federal privacy regulations?
Furthermore, one might question why the courts aren’t questioning the states’ interests before complying with their requests for an injunction. It appears that these states are merely adding hurdles to thwart Trump’s cost-saving pursuits that may lead to a reduction in federal funding for their local welfare programs—programs so extensive that their tax bases would not suffice to support them without federal subsidization.
One could argue that the potential loss of federal aid reflects an injury of sorts; however, should that automatically grant states legal standing? It is not uncommon for federal funding to encounter delays, and the statutory deadlines to dispatch the funds usually provide more than ample time for correction. This raises a legitimate question; can financial damage be deemed legally significant if the delayed disbursements, though not canceled, can still be rendered within the lawful timeframe?
It is striking how the judges overlooking these state cases seem indifferent to these concerns, even though these queries directly pertain to the extent of judicial authority as outlined in Article III of the Constitution. Instead, these judges appear keen on swiftly issuing injunctions and restraining orders, often without giving the defendant an opportunity for defense.
Certain Supreme Court Justices are considering narrowing the scope of standing given the precedent of its extensive expansion in past cases. Contrastingly, these attempts to restrict standing appear to bear fruit only when the topic under scrutiny aligns with conservative views.
Prevalent in the lower federal courts is an inclination to entertain claims alleging indirect impacts on states due to policy rulings. Flaunting the principle of balance and fairness, this inconsistent application of pivotal doctrines like standing does not serve the interests of either the executive branch or the judiciary.
Anticipating this incongruity in treatment could hint towards a potential increase in Presidential disregard to judicial limitations, especially if the perceived bias becomes too glaring. This repeatedly exemplifies that a system in which the judiciary takes on the role of managing the executive branch could lead to a slew of harmful consequences for the nation.