Palmer v. D.C.
Yesterday, Oct. 3rd, the defendants attempted to refute the SAF's supplemental brief on standing by saying that the SAF lacks organizational standing.
http://www.archive.org/download/gov....37887.39.0.pdf
Today, Oct. 4th, Gura responds with:
Quote:
|
REPLY BRIEF RE: STANDING
Although Defendants take issue with SAF’s organizational standing, they do not contest that SAF has representational standing. That much appears conceded. Defendants also concede the rule that “where at least one plaintiff has standing, a court need not decide whether any other plaintiffs have standing.” Def. Br., 10/4/12, Dkt. 39, at 1 (citations omitted). Nor do Defendants question that any of the individual plaintiffs have standing.
Accordingly, while the parties may have an abstract dispute about organizational standing, belaboring the topic would be pointless. Even if SAF lacked organizational standing, it would remain a plaintiff in its representative capacity. There is no need to issue an advisory opinion in this disputed area, particularly as SAF seeks no relief in this case different than that sought by the individual plaintiffs, and that which would be available to other SAF members.
|
Short, concise and to the point.
http://www.archive.org/download/gov....37887.40.0.pdf