[pettifogger]

It does not appear to me that any of the defendants challenged the father's standing, or at least the claim that the child was harmed, at the district court level. Seems pretty elemental to me. Had this allegation been challenged, the defendants could have sought discovery on the issue and learned that at least one of the bases for the suit was fraudulent. I seem to recall hearing from somewhere, however, that Newdork might have standing all by his lonesome, although it would have made the case tougher to win that way. (Harm to a mature adult vs. [alleged] harm to an impresionable child). I hope the defense lawyers have gotten a much-needed clue!

[aristeides]

Government lawyers probably thought they didn't need to raise the issue of standing, because they thought the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was a winner. But why, in the absence of a factual basis, did the Ninth Circuit rule on the issue of standing, instead of just reversing the district court on the issue of failure to state a claim and remanding on that basis?