The 3rd Circuit didn’t say “we agree” that the plaintiff is frustrated.
They said “We agree with the District Court’s ruling on page 483” that the plaintiffs do not have an “injury in fact” because their grievances are of a general nature and more appropriately addressed by the legislative branch.
This comment doesn’t exactly make sense in the decision. They say it should be addressed by the legislative branch, but that the ‘remedy’ is through ‘their (plaintiffs) votes.’ How does the legislative branch having anything to do with a remedy obtained through voting?? The legislature doesn’t control voters’ votes. It’s complete gobbledy-gook.
They also admit that Kerchner had distinguished himself as a plaintiff from the Berg case, BUT that “Carving out an exception on that basis would still leave an impermissibly large class with unique ability to sue in federal court.”
Who and how is it decided that a class is ‘impermissibly large’ and how is the complaint too ‘general’ when said class has a ‘unique ability to sue in federal court.’ This court completely undermined its own reasoning for dismissing the case.