None of the individuals requesting the Sup.Ct. intervene was the parent of a transgender child, none of them were personally affected by the school policy.
I would have liked to see the Court take action, but generally individuals bringing a case have to be personally damaged or injured (in a legal sense).
“None of the individuals requesting the Sup.Ct. intervene was the parent of a transgender child, none of them were personally affected by the school policy.”
Elon Musk needs to sue.
The CA school system destroyed the lives of one of his kids.
Just having your child exposed to this poisonous policy is standing enough in my opinion. Besides, how would they KNOW that their child has not been secretly "transitioning" because they would be kept in the dark about it?
Dems NEVER have to present a voter who is denied the right to vote because of voter ID laws, but they always get these cases pushed to trial anyway. It's all based on HYPOTHETICALS for them.
Bingo!
That personal injury or damage is such a fundamental element of standing that one wonders whether plaintiffs lacking such an element had competent counsel or whether the action intentionally proceeded with such a flaw.
So does that mean that they need a parent of one of then trans kids that was groomed by the school to bring the case so that parent would have standing?
So does that mean that they need a parent of one of then trans kids that was groomed by the school to bring the case so that parent would have standing?