One thing I found interesting with the decision, though puzzling, is that the court seems to feel bound by that district's holdings which restrict standing in cases where a law forbids an activity but a person has not yet been charged with violating it, despite the existence of contradictory cases in the Supreme Court. Aren't Supreme Court decisions supposed to overrule contradictory lower court decisions without intermediate courts having to explicitly say so?
Actually, the standing issue is one which has been used to justify considerable mischief, and I don't understand why injunctive relief against enforcement cannot be sought the same way as one would seem injunctive relief against other state actions.
Otherwise, as the courts themselves have acknowledged, the government will be free to commit unconstitutional wrongs against the public in such fashion that nobody will have standing to challenge them.
Otherwise, as the courts themselves have acknowledged, the government will be free to commit unconstitutional wrongs against the public in such fashion that nobody will have standing to challenge them.
Well put. -- Thanks.