In todays liberal legal system, standing seems to be the tool used when the courts don’t want to deal with something. How is it that a girlfriend has standing? I can understand a wife, kid etc, but someone who has zero legal connection to the individual?
Someone else pointed out on a similar post, his “girlfriend” and Sicknick broke up AT LEAST 6 MONTHS before the mostly peaceful protests at the Nation’s Capitol.
And then further looking into it, it seems they had not been an item since 2019! If true, this would mean it was MORE than a YEAR since they were no longer dating.
This is nothing more than a money dig - PERIOD!
The rules for Article III standing took their current form in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). The case involved a challenge by an environmental organization to federal regulations issued under the Endangered Species Act. In ruling against the plaintiff, the Supreme Court identified a three-part test for establishing standing in federal court. A plaintiff has the burden of proving each element of the test.
1. Injury in Fact
A plaintiff must have suffered “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that meets two additional criteria: (1) it is “concrete and particularized”; and (2) it is “actual or imminent,” as opposed to “conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. It does not need to be an economic injury, but it needs to be something that has directly affected the plaintiff.
2. Causation
The plaintiff’s injury must be “fairly traceable” to the conduct that is the subject of the lawsuit. Id. It cannot have resulted from actions by someone who is not a party to the lawsuit.
3. Likelihood of Redress
A decision in the plaintiff’s favor must be likely to provide an adequate remedy for the plaintiff’s injuries. The court specified that “redress[] by a favorable decision” must be “likely,” rather than “merely speculative.” Id. at 561.
She may have standing because if they lived together and he was the breadwinner of the household, she may have suffered a concrete and actual economic injury. I am not saying this because I support her suit (frankly, I believe its crap factually and there is no direct or proximate cause between DJT's actions and the injury complained of)