Journalist Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content

The Streisand Effect: Why Hiding Information Backfires

The Truth News — Fri, 06 Mar 2026 08:15:42 +0000

The Streisand Effect: Why Hiding Information Backfires

Streisand effect, phenomenon in which an attempt to censor, hide, or otherwise draw attention away from something only serves to attract more attention to it. The name derives from American singer and actress Barbra Streisand’s lawsuit against a photographer in 2003, which drew attention to the photo she was suing to have taken off the Internet.

Key Takeaways

The Streisand Effect happens when trying to hide information makes it more popular instead.
When people try to hide something, it often attracts more attention and curiosity.
To avoid the Streisand Effect, be open and honest if there’s a problem.

The Streisand Effect describes a situation in which a person or organization’s attempts to suppress information leads to greater attention to the information than it would have received otherwise. Not surprisingly, the term was named after singer Barbra Streisand. Before it was known as the “Streisand Effect,” however, there was a long and fascinating history of failed cover-ups that provide an interesting glimpse into the human psyche and our need to get to the bottom of things.

Origins of the Streisand Effect

Mike Masnick, founder of the website Techdirt, coined the term “Streisand Effect” in 2005, after the singer and actress sued the photographer Kenneth Adelman in 2003 for $50 million. Adelman had taken thousands of photos for his online database for the California Coastal Records Project, a resource that provided pictures of California’s coastal erosion to scientists and researchers, and one of these photos happened to show her mansion in Malibu.

Before Streisand sued, the image in question had been downloaded only six times; afterward, it received over a million views and was reprinted countless times. Streisand ultimately lost the lawsuit and had to pay Adelman’s legal fees.2 Streisand’s concern for her privacy was not unreasonable—she had been stalked before. But in this case, she would have been better off just leaving things alone. So, what causes this effect to play out as it does? We’ll explore the causes, provide some real-life examples, and even provide some guidance on how to avoid it in your own life.

Streisand’s lawsuit was filed against photographer Kenneth Adelman, the founder of the California Coastal Records Project, for which he photographed the coastline of the state from a helicopter and posted the photos to the Internet. Adelman indicated that the images were free for nonprofit use and had been used by government entities for scientific research. Among more than 12,000 photographs of California’s coast was one photograph in which Streisand’s mansion appeared. Streisand, who had in the past been harassed and stalked by fans, sued for $50 million, claiming that the photo violated her privacy and showed how to access her residence.

At the time the lawsuit was filed, the photograph had been downloaded only six times, including twice by Streisand’s lawyers. The lawsuit was highly publicized, and a flurry of interest and activity followed. In the month after the filing, the photo was viewed more than 400,000 times and reposted on news sites and elsewhere on the Internet. Thus, Streisand’s attempts to have the photo suppressed made it exceptionally more visible than it would otherwise have been. Streisand lost the suit and was ordered to pay Adelman’s legal fees for the case. The photo remains widely published on the Internet.

The phenomenon was not dubbed the “Streisand effect,” however, until two years later. In a post on the Techdirt blog, founder Mike Masnick describes a cease and desist order that the Marco Beach Ocean Resort, Marco Island, Florida, issued to a website named Urinal.net. The order indicated that the website had violated federal laws for posting information about one of the hotel’s urinals, which the website claimed could be seen from the hotel’s lobby. In the concluding statement of his post, Masnick asks:

How long is it going to take before lawyers realize that the simple act of trying to repress something they don’t like online is likely to make it so that something that most people would never, ever see…is now seen by many more people? Let’s call it the Streisand Effect.

The phenomenon existed before Streisand’s lawsuit. It is described by the Chinese idiom yù gài mí zhāng, which loosely translates to “trying to cover things up only makes them more evident.” The advent of the Internet, however, contributed to the effect’s proliferation. In 2012 a U.K. high court ordered five Internet service providers to ban access to The Pirate Bay, a Swedish file-sharing site, and the subsequent media coverage of the ruling caused visits to the site to increase by more than 10 million. In another case, from 2013, France’s domestic spy agency, Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur (DCRI), contacted the editors of Wikipedia requesting the revision of an article about Pierre-sur-Haute, a French air force base. The DCRI claimed that the article contained classified information. The Wikimedia Foundation refused the request, stating that they did not have enough information about the supposed violation. Later the DCRI allegedly forced a Wikipedia volunteer to delete the entry entirely or face arrest (the article was soon restored to the site by another volunteer). News of the saga spread across the Internet, and the Pierre-sur-Haute article subsequently became the most-viewed entry on the French version of Wikipedia.

Scholars have noted that censorship often backfires when the public perceives an attempt by a powerful person or organization to repress free speech. It can incite public outrage, especially if the story involves an underdog. Moreover, attempted censorship can spur curiosity. The banning of books and websites, for instance, often drives further interest in them. People tend to want to judge for themselves what is objectionable about something that has been singled out for suppression.

Understanding the Streisand Effect

With the Streisand Effect, if someone tries to hide, remove, or censor information, it can backfire. In fact, it can have the unintended consequence of drawing more attention to the thing they are trying to suppress.

As Cara R. Stewart, founder and CEO of Altalunas International, says, “It’s a classic example of having a legitimate concern but choosing an ineffective or counterproductive way to address it. Barbra Streisand’s concern about her privacy was understandable… However, the tool she chose to manage this—filing a lawsuit—was not only ineffective but actually worsened the situation.”

Moreover, the effects can be even more insidious. “There is also the risk of the erosion of trust in institutions or authorities responsible for the censorship,” says Carly Dober, psychologist and founder of Enriching Lives Psychology. “When people discover that information is being withheld or manipulated, they may become skeptical of the motives and credibility of the censors. This can foster a culture of distrust and encourage individuals to seek alternative sources of information, which may not always be reliable or accurate.”

Factors Contributing to the Streisand Effect

There are several factors that contribute to the Streisand Effect. First, psychologically, when people discover that someone—especially someone famous or well-known—is trying to hide or censor information, people become curious and rebellious. “This is driven by a fundamental human instinct to seek out forbidden or restricted knowledge, amplifying interest and dissemination,” explains Dober. Second, people are also motivated by psychological reactance, where one asserts their autonomy over the suppression of information by seeking out the restricted information.

“When people perceive that they are being denied access to information, their desire to obtain that information intensifies,” says Dober, “driven by a sense of defiance and a need to restore their freedom of choice.”

While the Streisand Effect existed prior to Barbra Streisand’s lawsuit in 2003, the internet, and more specifically, social media, has exacerbated the effect even more. Online communities and social media platforms encourage the rapid spread of content and enable information to go viral.

“When users encounter attempts to suppress information, they are likely to share it widely as an act of resistance, bolstered by a collective sense of injustice,” says Dober. “The social validation and reinforcement from peers further encourage individuals to participate in spreading the censored content. Additionally, the internet culture of digital activism fosters an environment where combating censorship is seen as a moral or ethical duty.”

This all combines to create a powerful set of factors that contribute to people’s responses, and makes the Streisand Effect a reality.

Real-Life Examples of the Streisand Effect

While the Streisand Effect existed before it was named, it has become increasingly likely to happen as more and more people have taken to social media. Here are some examples:

In addition to the above, similar attempts at censorship have been failing long before the existence of social media. Just ask any teenager if they are more interested in a particular band, movie, or TV show that adults claim is inappropriate for them.

Impact and Implications of the Streisand Effect

The Streisand Effect can have long-lasting consequences for individuals and organizations that attempt to suppress information. For individuals, the attention can lead to increased scrutiny.

“This phenomenon can significantly damage reputations meticulously built over the years,” observes Stewart. Dober concurs, adding, “This damage is not easily undone, as the initial act of suppression can create a lasting impression of dishonesty or untrustworthiness. For individuals, this can affect personal and professional relationships, career prospects, and public perception.”

For organizations, the losses can be great as well. “The Streisand Effect can severely damage brand reputation and erode trust with consumers and stakeholders,” says Dober. “This can lead to a loss of customer loyalty, decreased sales, and a tarnished public image. Additionally, efforts to suppress information can result in increased media scrutiny and regulatory attention.” Dober adds that it can take a long time to recover one’s reputation from this sort of error.

For society as a whole, the Streisand Effect has implications for free speech. Because attempts at censorship often fail, it shows the enduring resilience of freedom of speech in the digital age. “This phenomenon can also lead to greater public awareness and dialogue about important issues, promoting accountability and democratic values,” Dober observes.

“However, the widespread sharing of censored information can also lead to the dissemination of misinformation if [the censored information is] not properly contextualized,” she says.

Strategies to Mitigate the Streisand Effect

There are many strategies to mitigate or avoid the Streisand Effect. These include:

Respond quickly: As Stewart says, “A rapid response can prevent the issue from escalating, but it’s equally important to ensure your reactions are thoughtful and well-considered.”
Practice transparency: Stewart explains that you should be transparent about acknowledging the problem and the steps you will take to address it. “This approach shows that you are not only aware of the issue,” says Stewart, “but are also actively working towards a solution…. This approach doesn’t just mitigate damage; it can enhance a reputation, demonstrating a commitment to ethical practices and responsiveness….”
Be polite and professional: “It’s easy to become defensive when under fire,” claims Stewart, “but the goal is to acknowledge concerns and focus on resolving the issue constructively.”
Refrain from litigiousness: Suppressing information via a lawsuit can attract media attention, and by extension, curiosity from the public. “Instead of resorting to lawsuits,” Dober says, “individuals should consider alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation or negotiation, to resolve issues privately. By avoiding high-profile legal battles, individuals can prevent drawing additional attention to the information they wish to remain private.”
Practice emotional regulation: Developing coping mechanisms, like emotional regulation, can prevent people from reacting impulsively when information they’d like suppressed comes out. “Therapy can help individuals develop coping mechanisms for dealing with stress and anxiety related to potential public exposure,” says Dober.
Develop a strong support network: Your support network should include friends, family, and even professional advisors who can offer emotional support, advice, and practical assistance if a crisis strikes. “This network can help individuals navigate complex situations without resorting to actions that might trigger the Streisand Effect,” Dober observes.

Emotional regulation techniques, such as mindfulness and stress management, can provide a clearer perspective on how to handle sensitive information and public scrutiny more effectively.

International Journal of Communication 9(2015), 656–671 The Streisand Effect and Censorship Backfire

source

Unearthed 1997 Wired Article Predicted The 21st Century With Insane Accuracy

The Truth News — Wed, 12 Nov 2025 08:10:59 +0000

Unearthed 1997 Wired Article Predicted The 21st Century With Insane Accuracy

In 1997, predictions for the future ranged from technological optimism for a “Long Boom” to concerns about increasing economic inequality and cyberwarfare. The internet was a dominant theme, though it was still in its early days, with most users on dial-up connections.

Apocalyptic predictions:

Some sensationalist predictions made around 1997 involved apocalyptic events, largely pushed by psychics or other fringe figures. However, more mainstream concerns focused on the “Y2K bug,” which predicted widespread computer malfunctions at the turn of the millennium.

Technology predictions:

The tech landscape of 1997 included dial-up internet and new computers with MMX technology. Predictions from this era include:

The continued acceleration of Moore’s law and its impact on technological progress.
The growth of handheld computing devices and mobile internet access.
The expansion of the World Wide Web past 1 million websites.
The eventual obsolescence of traditional advertising due to adaptation and dominance of new digital media.
A miscalculation on how long it would take for computers to beat humans at the game of Go; one expert predicted it would take a century.

Key Predictions That Came True:

Digital Currencies: The authors anticipated the rise of private, decentralized forms of money that would bypass governments — remarkably similar to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
Decline of Nation-States: They predicted that as wealth and information moved online, traditional governments would lose control over money, taxation, and citizens who could operate globally through digital systems.
Cybercrime & Cyber Warfare: They foresaw new forms of conflict in cyberspace, where power would shift from physical to digital battlegrounds.
Remote Work & Digital Nomadism: The authors envisioned a future where highly skilled individuals could live and work anywhere, leveraging technology to achieve independence from centralized systems.
Wealth Disparity & Political Polarization: They warned that technology would create new elites — “sovereign individuals” — while destabilizing traditional economic and political structures.
Another 1997 warning came from Wired magazine’s July 1997 cover story, which predicted enormous technological progress but also flagged potential crises that could derail it — including pandemics, climate change, and soaring energy costs.
Together, these 1997 insights painted a surprisingly accurate picture of the 21st century — an age of digital power, decentralization, and disruption that defines our world today.

The Long Boom: A History of the Future, 1980–2020

We’re facing 25 years of prosperity, freedom, and a better environment for the whole world. You got a problem with that?

Predictions from Wired magazine

In its July 1997 cover story, Wired magazine presented two contrasting visions of the future.

The “Long Boom” (The Optimistic Vision):

Widespread economic expansion for 25 years.
Increased prosperity and unprecedented opportunity.
An improved environment.
Opportunities for social justice.

“10 Things That Could Go Wrong” (The Pessimistic Counterpoint):

A new Cold War between the U.S. and China.
Technological busts that fail to deliver on promises.
Russia’s descent into a kleptocracy or threatening nationalism.
The breakdown of European integration.
A major ecological crisis leading to climate change and food supply disruptions.
A major rise in crime and terrorism causing society to retract.
The overwhelming of health systems by dramatic increases in cancer due to pollution.
Soaring energy prices.
An uncontrollable plague that kills millions.
A cultural backlash that halts progress.

In 1997, Wired Magazine Predicts 10 Things That Could Go Wrong in the 21st Century: “An Uncontrollable Plague,” Climate Crisis, Russia Becomes a Kleptocracy & More

Hydrogen-powered cars. Biological, then quantum computing. Gene-therapy cancer treatments. An end to the War on Drugs. Reliable automatic translation. The impending end of the nation-state. Man setting foot on Mars. These are just a few of the developments in store for our world by the year 2020 — or so, at any rate, predicts “The Long Boom,” the cover story of a 1997 issue of Wired magazine, the official organ of 1990s techno-optimism. “We’re facing 25 years of prosperity, freedom, and a better environment for the whole world,” declares the cover itself. “You got a problem with that?”

Since the actual year 2020, this image has been smirkingly re-circulated as a prime example of blinkered End-of-History triumphalism. From the vantage of 2021, it’s fair to say that the predictions of the article’s authors Peter Schwartz and Peter Leyden (who expanded their thesis into a 2000 book) went wide of the mark.

https://goodshepherdmedia.net/homer-simpson-predicted-the-mass-of-the-higgs-boson-14-years-before-cern/

But their vision of the 21st century hasn’t proven risible in every aspect: a rising China, hybrid cars, video calls, and online grocery-shopping have become familiar enough hardly to merit comment, as has the internet’s status as “the main medium of the 21st century.” And who among us would describe the cost of university as anything but “absurd”?

Schwartz and Leyden do allow for darker possibilities than their things-can-only-get-better rhetoric make it seem. Some of these they enumerate in a sidebar (remember sidebars?) headlined “Ten Scenario Spoilers.” Though not included in the article as archived on Wired’s web site, it has recently been scanned and posted to social media, with viral results. A “new Cold War” between the U.S. and China; a “global climate change that, among other things, disrupts the food supply”; a “major rise in crime and terrorism forces the world to pull back in fear”; an “uncontrollable plague — a modern-day influenza epidemic or its equivalent”: to one degree or another, every single one of these ten dire developments seems in our time to have come to pass.

“We’re still on the front edge of the great global boom,” we’re reminded in the piece’s conclusion. “A hell of a lot of things could go wrong.” You don’t say. Yet for all of the 21st-century troubles that few riding the wave of first-dot-com-boom utopianism would have credited, we today run the risk of seeing our world as too dystopian. Now as then, “the vast array of problems to solve and the sheer magnitude of the changes that need to take place are enough to make any global organization give up, any nation back down, any reasonable person curl up in a ball.” We could use a fresh infusion of what Schwartz and Leyden frame as the boom’s key ingredient: American optimism. “Americans don’t understand limits. They have boundless confidence in their ability to solve problems. And they have an amazing capacity to think they really can change the world.” In that particular sense, perhaps we all should become Americans after all.

in the same year A BOOK DID THE SAME!

The Sovereign Future: How a 1997 Book Accurately Predicted 2025

Predictions from The Sovereign Individual

Written by James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg and published in 1997, The Sovereign Individual made many predictions related to the internet’s influence.

The decline of the nation-state: Governments were predicted to lose control as individuals and businesses adopted decentralized, digital systems.
The rise of digital currencies: The authors foresaw private, decentralized money, an idea that aligns with modern cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.
The online economy and cybercrime: The book accurately predicted the growth of the online economy as well as the increase in cybercrime and cyber warfare.
Social stratification: The authors predicted the internet would widen the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots”.
The emergence of remote work and a “digital nomad” lifestyle.
Disruption of traditional jobs: The book predicted that automation, AI, and global competition would make many traditional jobs obsolete.
Changes in education: Digital content and online education were predicted to transform how learning is delivered.

source

Charlie Kirks Shooter CAUGHT in the Charlie Kirk Assassination

The Truth News — Fri, 12 Sep 2025 14:52:47 +0000

Charlie Kirks Shooter CAUGHT in the Charlie Kirk Assassination

The suspect in Charlie Kirk’s shooting death has been identified as 22-year-old Tyler Robinson.
During a Friday news conference, Utah Gov. Spencer J. Cox said Robinson indicated to a family friend that he was connected to the shooting.
President Donald Trump initially made the announcement about Robinson being in custody during an interview on FOX & Friends.

Charlie Kirk’s killer was arrested overnight in Utah, officials announced Friday morning. Tyler Robinson, 22, is in custody with the help of a family member and will face charges for murdering the conservative political activist earlier this week.

WE AS CHRISTIANS & AMERICANS SHALL FEAR NO MAN, JUSTICE WILL COME ONE WAY OR ANOTHER FROM GOD’S SOVEREIGN HANDS

Here are the latest updates for Friday, Sept. 12, 2025:

Robinson was engineering major, university says

12 p.m. ET: Utah State University announced Friday that Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old suspect arrested in the killing of Charlie Kirk, “briefly attended” classes there for one semester in 2021.

Robinson was a pre-engineering major and took classes consistent with that major for his one semester, Fox News Digital learned.

New details emerge about Tyler Robinson

11:30 a.m. ET: The Associated Press reported that Tyler James Robinson was admitted to Utah State University on an academic scholarship, according to a video of him reading his acceptance letter posted to a family member’s social media account. A university spokesperson told the AP he attended the school for only one semester in 2021.

Utah state records state Robinson was registered as a voter but not affiliated with either political party.

Mug shot of Tyler Robinson released

10:55 a.m. ET: Officials released a mugshot of Tyler Robinson, the shooting suspect in Charlie Kirk’s death.

Booking photos of Tyler Robinson (Fox News)

Utah governor says Kirk assassination suspect is believed to have acted alone

10:45 a.m. ET: Utah Gov. Spencer J. Cox says shooting suspect Tyler Robinson is believed to have acted alone, and the Charlie Kirk investigation is ongoing despite Robinson’s arrest.

FBI Director Kash Patel shares timeline of investigation

10:30 a.m. ET: The first FBI agents arrived on the scene at Utah Valley University some 16 minutes after Kirk was shot on Wednesday, FBI Director Kash Patel said at the news conference.

The bureau released the first photos of the suspect on Thursday morning, followed by the announcement of a cash reward and then the release of video of the suspect climbing down from the roof of a campus building and running away.

“Just last night, the suspect was taken into custody at 10 p.m. local time,” Patel announced.

Utah governor says Kirk’s assassination ‘is an attack on all of us’

10:26 a.m. ET: Utah Gov. Spencer J. Cox said some people have asked why there have been so many resources dedicated to investigating Kirk’s killing when there’s violence around the country, but the governor said it is “much bigger than an attack on an individual. It is an attack on all of us.”

The Republican said Kirk’s killing is “an attack on the American experiment” and values, and “cuts to the very foundation of who we are.”

Details of messages on bullet casings revealed

10:25 a.m. ET: Bullet casings discovered by authorities had several inscriptions engraved on them, Utah Gov. Spencer J. Cox said. The casing that had been fired read: “notices bulges OwO what’s this?”

Cox said there were three unfired casings:
One read, “hey fascist! catch!” with an up arrow symbol, right arrow symbol, and three down arrow symbols.
Another one read: “oh bella ciao bella ciao bella ciao ciao ciao,” Cox said.
The third fired casing read: “if you read this you are gay lmao.”

Kirk assassination suspect indicated to a family friend that he was connected to the shooting

10:15 a.m. ET: Utah Gov. Spencer J. Cox opened the news conference on the latest developments in Charlie Kirk’s assassination with the statement, “We got him.”

Cox told reporters that Kirk assassination suspect Tyler Robinson indicated to a family friend that he was connected to the shooting.

The president talked about learning the news of Kirk’s assassination

9:50 a.m. ET: Near the end of his Fox News interview, President Donald Trump said he’d been holding a meeting about building the new White House ballroom when his aides interrupted.

“They came in and they said, ‘Charlie Kirk is dead.’ I didn’t know what they meant. I said, ‘What do you mean, dead?’” Trump said.

“‘Charlie Kirk was shot.’ And they thought it was dead because it was so horrific.”

Trump said he swiftly ended his meeting. “I just told these people, “Get out, you gotta go.”

Suspect in custody in connection with Charlie Kirk shooting is 22-year-old from Utah, AP source says

9:25 a.m. ET: The suspect in custody in connection with the assassination of Charlie Kirk is a 22-year-old from Utah, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press.

Authorities have identified the suspect as Tyler Robinson, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the ongoing investigation.

A news conference is scheduled with the latest on Charlie Kirk investigation

9 a.m. ET: State and federal officials in Utah are planning to hold a news conference on the investigation.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox and Public Safety Commissioner Beau Mason, FBI Director Kash Patel and FBI Special Agent in Charge Robert Bohls are expected to attend.

Suspect Tyler Robinson, left, and Charlie Kirk.

Trump says Charlie Kirk shooting suspect in custody

8:15 a.m. ET: Trump confirmed the news during a Friday morning interview with FOX & Friends.

“I think, with a high degree of certainty, we have him in custody, right in custody. Everyone did a great job,” Trump said.

“I just heard about it five minutes before I walked in. As I’m walking in, they said, ‘Looking real good.’ They have the person that they wanted.”

On FOX & Friends, President Trump broke the news of an arrest in the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Sources told FOX News Friday that the suspected shooter was taken into custody in Southern Utah.

Federal investigators and state officials on Thursday had released photos and a video of the person they believe is responsible. Kirk was shot as he spoke to a crowd gathered in a courtyard at Utah Valley University in Orem.

More than 7,000 leads and tips had poured in, officials said. Authorities have yet to publicly name the suspect or cite a motive in the killing, the latest act of political violence to convulse the United States.

Video shows alleged gunman fleeing the scene

Dig deeper:

Law enforcement showed new video during a news conference on Thursday evening showing the alleged gunman fleeing from the scene after Kirk was shot.

In the video, a person wearing dark clothing is seen running across a rooftop and then climbing down the side. He is then seen running away from the scene.

Who was Charlie Kirk?

The backstory:

Kirk was the founder and executive director of Turning Point USA. Turning Point was founded in suburban Chicago in 2012 by Kirk, then 18, and William Montgomery, a tea party activist, to proselytize on college campuses for low taxes and limited government.

Kirk appeared alongside Trump on stage at political events, and was also a frequent commentator on Fox News, CNBC, and FOX Business News. He was the youngest speaker at the 2016 Republican National Convention.

Kirk played a major role in Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. He was credited with turning out the younger vote for Trump.

The Source: Information for this story was provided by LIVENOW, and the Associated Press. This story was reported from Washington, D.C

Tyler Robinson named suspect in Charlie Kirk shooting, how he was caught

Robinson was identified by his father in photographs released by auhtorities.

Tyler Robinson, 22 – Charlie Kirk’s Killer – The True Beta Male Soy Boy Cuk Murderer Type

Authorities have taken into custody the person they suspect of shooting and killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk on Wednesday at a Utah university campus event.

Tyler Robinson, 22, was taken into custody in St. George, Utah, on Friday, authorities and sources told ABC News.

Robinson’s father recognized him as the person being sought by police after authorities distributed photographs.

The father initially told Robinson to turn himself in. Robinson initially said no, but later changed his mind, officials said.

The father then called a youth pastor, who is also a U.S. Marshals task force officer. The officer advised the father to have Robinson stay in place.

At a press conference on Friday, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said Robinson had become more political in recent years, and engaged in a conversation with a family member about Kirk’s visit to the Utah Valley University campus the night before.

Cox also described what was engraved on the casings found on the scene.

The first casing, according to Cox, said “Notices Bulge OWO what’s this??”

The other three unfired casing said: “Hey fascist! CATCH!” with an arrow symbol pointing up, then to the right, and then three arrows pointing down, “O Bella ciao, Bella ciao, Bella ciao, Ciao, ciao!,” and “If you read this, you are GAY Lmao.”

When law enforcement identified Robinson, they also interviewed Robinson’s roommate who showed them a message between Robinson and his roommate.

“The content of these messages included messages affiliated with the contact Tyler, stating a need to retrieve a rifle from a drop point, leaving the rifle in a bush,” Cox said. “Messages related to a to visually watching the area where a rifle was left, and a message referring to having left the rifle wrapped in a towel. The messages also referred to engraving bullets and a mention of a scope and the rifle being unique. Messages from the contact Tyler also mentioned that he had changed outfits.”

Cox said Robinson arrived on campus driving a gray Dodge Challenger, which matched his vehicle he arrived in on campus.

He also thanked Robinson’s family, “who did the right thing.”

FBI Director Kash Patel said that law enforcement caught Robinson within 33 hours of the shooting and was on scene within 16 minutes.

“This is a very much an ongoing investigation, as the governor said, and we will continue to work with state and local authorities to develop the investigation to provide them the evidence they need for their ongoing prosecutions,” Patel said.

Authorities and a former FBI agent previously said they believed the subject to be a college-aged individual with an apparent proficiency in handling a high-powered rifle and likely knew the layout of the university where the homicide occurred.

President Donald Trump initially announced the arrest, stating on “Fox and Friends” on Friday morning, “I think with high degree of certainty, we have him in custody.”

During a news conference on Thursday evening, state and federal officials released video of the person of interest jumping down from the roof of a building on the campus.

Beau Mason, commissioner of the Utah Department of Public Safety, said the suspect was wearing “distinct clothing” that could help in his identification, including Converse sneakers.

He said the person seen in the video jumping from the roof left shoe impressions and a palm print.

A still from a video released by the FBI of the suspected gunman in the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk.

FBI

“We are investing everything we have into this and we will catch this individual,” Mason said at the news conference.

Authorities had received more than 7,000 tips and leads and completed some 200 interviews, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said.

During a news conference on Thursday morning, Robert Bohls, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Salt Lake City field office, said investigators believe they have recovered the weapon used in what the governor of Utah on Wednesday called a “political assassination.”

Bohls said the weapon, a high-powered bolt-action rifle, was found discarded in a wooded area near Utah Valley University (UVU) in Orem, and is being analyzed at an FBI laboratory for any clues that can identify the gunman.

The FBI released images of a person of interest sought in connection with the deadly shooting of Charlie Kirk.

FBI Salt Lake City

More specifically, multiple law enforcement sources with knowledge of the investigation told ABC News that the weapon is an older model imported Mauser .30-06 caliber bolt-action rifle that was found wrapped in a towel in a wooded area near the school. The sources said a spent cartridge was discovered in the chamber of the gun.

The gun and cartridges recovered are to be flown to the FBI’s main laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, for the most technologically advanced forensic analysis, law enforcement sources told ABC News. The focus is to look for any latent fingerprints and DNA, the sources said.

Investigators also collected a footwear impression, a palm print and forearm prints for analysis, Bohls said.

Mason said that investigators are also studying “good video footage” of the shooter that they have used to track his movements before and after the shooting.

The FBI released images of a person of interest sought in connection with the deadly shooting of Charlie Kirk.

FBI Salt Lake City

Following Thursday’s news conference, the FBI in Salt Lake City released surveillance images of the person of interest wanted in connection with the shooting. The images show a person who appears to be a white male, wearing all dark clothing, including a dark long-sleeved collarless top with what appears to be an image on the front that includes an American flag. The man in the images is also wearing a dark ball cap and sunglasses.

The FBI announced a $100,000 reward is being offered for information leading to the capture of the suspect.

MORE: Manhunt for shooter continues after Charlie Kirk killed in ‘political assassination’

Mason said investigators believe the suspect arrived at the UVU campus at 11:52 a.m. local time, about 28 minutes before Kirk, the CEO and co-founder of the conservative grass roots organization Turning Point USA, was shot. He said the deadly shot was fired from a building a substantial distance from where Kirk was speaking to a crowd, authorities estimate was about 3,000 people. He did not disclose which building the shooter fired from.

“We have tracked his movements onto the campus, through stairwells, up to the roof, across the roof to the shooting location,” Mason said. “After the shooting, we were able to track his movements as he moved to the other side of the building, jumped off of the building, and fled off of the campus into a neighborhood.”

A drone view shows the reported location of the shooter on a rooftop, at the scene where U.S. right-wing activist, commentator, Charlie Kirk was fatally shot during an event at Utah Valley University, in Orem, Utah, September 11, 2025.

Cheney Orr/Reuters

He said investigators combed the neighborhood for the suspect and contacted residents with doorbell cameras to analyze.

“The individual appears to be of college age,” said Mason, adding that the person of interest “blended in well with the college institution.”

Brad Garrett, a retired FBI agent and an ABC News contributor, said the evidence investigators have shared so far paints a picture of a suspect who planned the shooting down to the last detail, including discarding the possible murder weapon along his escape path.

“He probably did that [because] he didn’t want to be seen carrying a weapon, running through a neighborhood, or walking through a neighborhood,” Garrett said.

Right-wing activist and commentator Charlie Kirk throws hats to the crowd shortly before he was shot at a Utah Valley University speaking event in Orem, Utah, Sept. 10, 2025.

Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune via Reuters

Garrett said the discovery of the weapon is a major clue that will give investigators additional leads to track down.

“Where did it come from? It could very well be registered or purchased by this shooter. We’ll have to see,” Garrett said. “Was it stolen? Whatever it might be, the ATF [the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] will help them immediately, and they probably already know what that is.”

Garrett said the discovery of the killer’s palm print can also be helpful.

“If he’s ever had a full set of prints, where you print the entire hand, let’s say he’d been in the military or some aspect of the government or a contractor, they may have those,” Garrett said. “That’s a long shot, but they may have those.”

Garrett said the distance from where the shot was fired could also shed light on the identity of the gunman.

“My guess is … a scope and a tripod would have helped him a lot for steadiness, but the real key is if he was able, and sadly did, fire one shot that killed Charlie Kirk, that’s showing some proficiency because it’s very difficult to have the breathing and the concentration to pull off one shot like that and that’s what killed the person,” Garrett said. “Does that suggest prior training? Maybe. It certainly suggests somebody who’s been practicing a lot with this weapon or some weapons just like this.”

Garrett said investigators are likely going to every gun range and gun shop in the area to determine if the gunman had visited them.

“The concern obviously as time goes on … did he leave the area? If he’s smart, then he did,” Garrett said. “But many times, these kinds of shooters don’t do that.” source

WE HERE AT GOOD SHEPHERD NEWS MEDIA BELIEVE ITS IS OUR OPINION BASED ON THE VIDEO BELOW THAT THE KILLER HAD PARTNERS ON THE INSIDE

https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Charlie-Kirk-Assassin-Call-Signs-FULL.mp4

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk dies after being shot at Utah college event

The Truth News — Wed, 10 Sep 2025 21:19:39 +0000

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk dies after being shot at Utah college event

Its with our deepest regrets to reports such a heinous evil crime, our Christian Brother CHARLIE KIRK has PASSED, Our prayers go out to our heavenly father to take Charlie Kirk into heaven, to forgive him of any transgressions he may have done so that he may be in heaven with you father, IN JESUS MIGHTY NAME, AMEN

Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and close ally of President Donald Trump, was shot and killed Wednesday at a Utah college event in an act that drew renewed attention to the threat of political violence across the United States.

The death was announced on social media by Trump, who praised the 31-year-old Kirk, the co-founder and CEO of the youth organization Turning Point USA, as “Great, and even Legendary.”

“No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie,” Trump posted on his Truth Social account.

People were seen exiting a building on Utah Valley University after Charlie Kirk, the CEO and co-founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, was shot Wednesday at an event on campus.

The suspected shooter has not been arrested, Orem, Utah, Mayor David Young said. A person who was taken into custody by law enforcement at the university where Kirk was speaking was not the suspect, according to a person familiar with the investigation who was not authorized to speak publicly.

Videos posted to social media from Utah Valley University show Kirk speaking into a handheld microphone while sitting under a white tent emblazoned with the slogans “The American Comeback” and “Prove Me Wrong.” A single shot rings out and Kirk can be seen reaching up with his right hand as a large volume of blood gushes from the left side of his neck. Stunned spectators are heard gasping and screaming before people start to run away. The AP was able to confirm the videos were taken at Sorensen Center courtyard on the Utah Valley University campus.

“We are confirming that he was shot and we are praying for Charlie,” said Aubrey Laitsch, public relations manager for Turning Point USA.

The crowd reacts after Charlie Kirk, the CEO and co-founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, is shot at the Utah Valley University Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2025, in Orem, Utah. (Tess Crowley/The Deseret News via AP)

Kirk was speaking at a debate hosted by his nonprofit political organization. Immediately before the shooting, Kirk was taking questions for an audience member about mass shootings and gun violence.

“Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?” an audience members asked. Kirk responded: “Too many.”

The questioner followed up: “Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?”

“Counting or not counting gang violence?” Kirk asked.

Then a single shot rang out.

The event had been met with divided opinions on campus. An online petition calling for university administrators to bar Kirk from appearing received nearly 1,000 signatures. The university issued a statement last week citing First Amendment rights and affirming its “commitment to free speech, intellectual inquiry, and constructive dialogue.”

Last week, Kirk posted on X images of news clips showing his visit to Utah colleges was sparking controversy. He wrote, “What’s going on in Utah?”

Trump and a host of Republican and Democratic elected officials decried the shooting and offered prayers for Kirk on social media.

“We must all pray for Charlie Kirk, who has been shot. A great guy from top to bottom. GOD BLESS HIM!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

Law enforcement tapes off an area after Charlie Kirk, the CEO and co-founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, was shot at the Utah Valley University, Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2025, in Orem, Utah. (Tess Croewley/The Deseret News via AP)

The shooting comes amid a spike in political violence in the United States across all parts of the ideological spectrum. The attacks include the assassination of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband at their house in June, the firebombing of a Colorado parade to demand Hamas release hostages, and a fire set at the house of Pennsylvania’s governor, who is Jewish, in April. The most notorious of these events is the shooting of Trump during a campaign rally last year.

Former Utah congressman Jason Chaffetz, a Republican who was at the event, said in an interview on Fox News Channel that he heard one shot and saw Kirk go back.

“It seemed like it was a close shot,” Chaffetz said, who seemed shaken as he spoke.

He said there was a light police presence at the event and Kirk had some security but not enough.

“Utah is one of the safest places on the planet,” he said. “And so we just don’t have these types of things.”

Turning Point was founded in suburban Chicago in 2012 by Kirk, then 18, and William Montgomery, a tea party activist, to proselytize on college campuses for low taxes and limited government. It was not an immediate success.

But Kirk’s zeal for confronting liberals in academia eventually won over an influential set of conservative financiers.

Charlie Kirk hands out hats before speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2025. (Tess Crowley/The Deseret News via AP)

Despite early misgivings, Turning Point enthusiastically backed Trump after he clinched the GOP nomination in 2016. Kirk served as a personal aide to Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, during the general election campaign.

Soon, Kirk was a regular presence on cable TV, where he leaned into the culture wars and heaped praise on the then-president. Trump and his son were equally effusive and often spoke at Turning Point conferences.

https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Charlie-Kirk-Shot.mp4

https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/JESUS-IS-REAL-christianity-jesus-christian-bible-God-faith-jesuschrist-church-chr.mp4

https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Listen-to-what-question-was-asked-before-Chrlie-Kirk-was-fataly-shot.mp4

https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/PRAYERS-FOR-CHARLIE-KIRKS-FAMILYAnd-God-shall-wipe-away-all-tears-from-their-eyes-and-t.mp4

Charlie Kirk Shot at Utah University Multiple Times – PRAYERS for CHARLIE KIRK

Charlie Kirk Shot at Utah University Multiple Times – PRAYERS for CHARLIE KIRK

The Truth News — Wed, 10 Sep 2025 19:40:22 +0000

Charlie Kirk Shot at Utah University Multiple Times – PRAYERS for CHARLIE KIRK

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

CAUTINON THE VIDEO BELOW IS THE REAL VIDEO, ITS DISTURBING AND VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED. DO NOT LET YOUR CHILDREN SEE THIS VIDEO

https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Charlie-Kirk-Shot.mp4

https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/JESUS-IS-REAL-christianity-jesus-christian-bible-God-faith-jesuschrist-church-chr.mp4

https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Listen-to-what-question-was-asked-before-Chrlie-Kirk-was-fataly-shot.mp4

https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/PRAYERS-FOR-CHARLIE-KIRKS-FAMILYAnd-God-shall-wipe-away-all-tears-from-their-eyes-and-t.mp4

Charlie Kirk, a well-known right-wing political activist, was reportedly shot in the neck at an event at Utah Valley University on Wednesday.

The university confirmed the shooting in a post on X, writing:

“Today at about 12:10 a shot was fired at the visiting speaker, Charlie Kirk. He was hit and taken from the location by his security. Campus police is investigating, a suspect is in custody.”

Bystanders told the Deseret News that Kirk was shot during a Q&A with students.

His condition was not immediately known.

Kirk is the CEO and co-founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA. The organization also confirmed he was shot, according to the Associated Press.

A single shot rings out, and Kirk can be seen reaching up with his right hand as a large volume of blood gushes from the left side of his neck. Stunned spectators are heard gasping and screaming before people start to run away.

A spokesperson for the university told the New York Times that Kirk was struck by a suspect who had fired from the Losee Center, a building about 200 yards away. The suspect had been taken into custody, she said, and was not a student.

President Donald Trump responded to the shooting, writing in a post on Truth Social:

“We must all pray for Charlie Kirk, who has been shot. A great guy from top to bottom. GOD BLESS HIM!”

At a Turning Point USA event in 2023, Kirk said gun deaths were “unfortunately” worth it to defend the Second Amendment.

According to Newsweek, he said:

“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death … I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”

Lawmakers quickly sounded off after conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot during an event on his “American Comeback Tour” at Utah Valley University on Wednesday afternoon.

Prayers for Kirk’s recovery as well as condemnation of political violence poured in from both Democrats and Republicans minutes after the news broke.

“This is a good time to pray,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said on X, adding that he was monitoring the situation.

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk speaks during the Turning Point Action’s The Believers Summit in West Palm Beach, Florida on July 26, 2024. (REUTERS/Marco Bello)

Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., a first-term Democrat, wrote online, “Political violence has NO place in our society. I am closely monitoring the events in Utah.”

“The attack on Charlie Kirk today is a horrific act of political violence. Praying for his safety and for his family in this trying time. We must reject and condemn political violence in all its forms,” Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., said in a statement.

The top Democrat in the House, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York similarly condemned the violence.

“Political violence is NEVER acceptable. My thoughts and prayers are with Charlie Kirk and his family,” Jeffries wrote in a statement.

The top Democrat and Republican in the Senate both sounded off with similar sentiments in the minutes after Kirk was shot.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., speaks with reporters at the Capitol in Washington on June 2, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

“There is no place in our country for political violence. Period, full stop. Please join me in praying for Charlie Kirk,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., wrote on X.

Kirk also got support from former Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., who left Congress after she was shot and nearly killed in a political assassination attempt in 2011.

“I’m horrified to hear that Charlie Kirk was shot at an event in Utah. Democratic societies will always have political disagreements, but we must never allow America to become a country that confronts those disagreements with violence,” Giffords wrote.

She added that she and her husband, Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., are praying for Kirk’s recovery.

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., condemned gun violence after the shooting on Wednesday.

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also wished Kirk well after the shooting. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

“The horrific shooting today at Utah Valley University is reprehensible. Political violence has absolutely no place in our nation. All Americans should pray for Charlie Kirk’s recovery and hold the entire UVU community in our hearts as they endure the trauma of this gun violence,” Pelosi wrote in a statement.

Ellen Treanor, Associate Vice President of Strategic Communications Management at Utah Valley University, told Fox News that a suspect was in custody after Kirk’s shooting.

OUR DEEPEST CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILY, CHARLIE HAS PASSED
OF CHARLIE KIRK OUR PRAYERS AND THOUGHTS OUR WITH YOU, YOUR FAMILY AND HIM AND HIS CHILDREN

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk dies after being shot at Utah college event

Trump deployment of troops to quell LA rioters latest page in president’s political playbook

The Truth News — Fri, 13 Jun 2025 18:08:17 +0000

Trump deployment of troops to quell LA rioters latest page in president’s political playbook

‘This is exactly what Donald Trump campaigned on,’ says conservative consultant Nicole Schlinger

President Donald Trump is defending his muscular and controversial moves to tame unrest in the nation’s second most populous city.

“If I didn’t “SEND IN THE TROOPS” to Los Angeles the last three nights, that once beautiful and great City would be burning to the ground right now,” the president argued Tuesday in a social media post.

Aiming to extinguish escalating protests in Los Angeles sparked by immigration raids carried out by ICE at his administration’s direction, Trump sent in National Guard troops and even mobilized Marines.

Trump broke six decades of precedent by federalizing California’s National Guard without the consent of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Protesters block the intersection of 2nd St. and San Pedro St. during Monday night’s anti-ICE rally in downtown Los Angeles. (Peter D’Abrosca for Fox News Digital)

Regardless of the legality of his moves, Trump’s actions put immigration and law and order – key issues that helped him win back the White House in last year’s election – firmly back in the national spotlight, offering the president obvious political opportunities.

A source in the president’s political orbit told Fox News that it is “a winning script,” by putting Democrats on defense once again regarding immigration.

Additionally, the source said that Trump has a clear mandate from American voters for his mass deportation effort to clear the country of undocumented immigrants.

The optics – clashes with police and tear gas in the streets, masked protesters throwing rocks at police, setting cars on fire and waving Mexican flags – may likely boost support among a large swath of Americans, bolstering Trump’s political playbook.

While Trump’s overall approval ratings remain underwater in most national polling, thanks to negative numbers on the economy, the visuals from Los Angeles shine a spotlight on the issues on which the president performs best – immigration and border security, and law and order.

A woman waits for a bus at a stop vandalized with anti-ICE graffiti while riots grip Los Angeles. (Peter D’Abrosca for Fox News Digital)

“Images splashed across the media of Mexican flag-wielding rioters burning cars and assaulting police officers validate President Trump’s call for greater immigration enforcement and border control. It also puts Democrats on the defensive by highlighting their inability to maintain law and order in blue states,” veteran Republican strategist and communicator Ryan Williams told Fox News.

Additionally, Nicole Schlinger, a longtime conservative consultant, highlighted that “this is exactly what Donald Trump campaigned on, and the swing-state voters who backed him expect action before these riots reach their cities. He’s delivering on their votes, with action, not apology.”

The violence in Los Angeles also offers up a familiar foil to the president – Newsom, a Democrat, who is considered a potential contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination.

Newsom, whom Trump suggested should be arrested, has repeatedly accused the president and his administration of manufacturing the crisis and illegally militarizing Los Angeles.

BETA MALE (LEFT) VS ALPHA MALE (RIGHT)

FUNNY THE BETA MALE IS FROM THE LEFT (DEMOCRATS) AND STANDS ON THE LEFT ON ISSUES AND THIS PHOTO

MEANWHILE ALPHA TRUMP IS FROM THE RIGHT AND STANDS ON THE RIGHT ON ISSUES AND THIS PHOTO

IRONY

BETA MALE (LEFT) [Getty Family propped up his whole life and connected by blood to Nancy Pelsosi another con theif] VS ALPHA MALE (RIGHT) [worked to be where he is, far from his daddy petty 50M he received, he is worth over 5,100M or 5.1 Billion]

Ceck out the softy gel filled Newsom approach “Daddy you better listen or else” (in a feminine voice half tearing)

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, left, and President Donald Trump, seen meeting in Los Angeles in January amid rampant wildfires, are now trading fire over anti-ICE protests and the president’s federalizing of National Guard troops. (Pool)

Newsom, who is suing the president to reverse the order, charged in a social media post that “this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism that threatens the foundation of our republic. We cannot let it stand.”

While Newsom has condemned the violence in the streets, Schlinger claimed that “this is the visual that plays right into Trump’s hand. Liberal Gavin Newsom, who tried to wave a moderate flag on conservative podcasts, is now defending illegal immigrants flying the Mexican flag while standing on burning cars. There’s no middle ground with burning cars on it.”

Williams argued that “Newsom’s record of failed leadership, rank incompetence, and botched responses to multiple high-profile crises make him an excellent political foil for President Trump.”

Another fringe benefit for Trump – the rioting in Los Angeles bumped an uncomfortable headline for the administration – the nasty feud with Elon Musk is far from the spotlight.

FETTERMAN CALLS OUT HIS OWN PARTY OVER UNREST IN LOS ANGELES

Republican officials and committees are using the violence in Los Angeles as a cudgel to bash Democrats.

“If you look at what’s going on in L.A., it shows exactly what [former President] Biden and the Democrats did by opening their borders the way they did and allowing millions and millions and millions of people coming here unvetted. They’ve caused all this,” Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida claimed on Tuesday. “I think President Trump is doing what he said he was going to do on the campaign trail. He’s going to keep the country safe.”

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which is the campaign arm of the House GOP, charged that “While LA is burning and law enforcement is being attacked, radical House Democrats are ‘scoffing’ at any thought of condemning the violent riots. The party has completely lost their minds.”

Even first-term Sen. John Fetterman of California, who has increasingly bucked and criticized fellow Democrats, chastised his own party.

Democratic Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman criticized some in his own party for their response to the protests in Los Angeles. (Fox Nation)

“I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations, and immigration—but this is not that. This is anarchy and true chaos. My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement,” Fetterman argued in a social media post.

FULL VIDEO BELOW

Good Shepherd GROUND BREAKING NEWS FOOTWORK IN THE FIELD and source

What Is Legal Standing and What Are the Elements of Standing to Sue?

The Truth News — Sat, 10 Aug 2024 08:56:12 +0000

Standing to Sue – What is it?

standing Definition

Standing, or locus standi, is capacity of a party to bring suit in court.

Standing in State Court

A state’s statutes will determine what constitutes standing in that particular state’s courts. These typically revolve around the requirement that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable.

Standing in Federal Court

At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue:

The plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact,” meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury

STANDING: WHAT IT IS AND WHY IT MATTERS

Legal standing, or locus standi, refers to the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court. Domestic legislation generally requires a nexus between the offense and the damage suffered by a person to grant him/her legal standing for criminal or civil legal proceedings. Constitutional, administrative, or class action procedures have different requirements for standing. Standing for collective damages follows a different principle than the nexus, focuses on the damage, and is often based on the representation of collective rights.

At its most basic, standing is the right of a party to challenge the conduct of another party in court. Standing is not about the actual issues of the case. Instead, it is about the parties to the lawsuit and where they “stand” in relation towards each other. Courts treat standing as an “antecedent” to a lawsuit. In other words, a party must prove they have standing before the court will consider the merits of the case.

Although the definition of standing varies among different jurisdictions, most courts look at some or all of the following elements before determining whether a party has standing in a case:

A legally cognizable interest. This means that the plaintiff must show an interest that is recognized by the courts or by statute.
An injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have a real or a threatened injury. This doesn’t have to mean a bodily injury. It can also mean an infringement of a concrete and actual protected interest. (property rights, civil rights, etc.)
Causation: The injury must be caused by the named defendant, not a third-party who acted independently.
Redressability: A plaintiff must show that a favorable court decision will likely redress the injury. Mere speculation is not enough.

Standing In A Personal Injury Case

A personal injury claim is centered around the bodily harm that a person suffers because of another party’s negligence. To determine whether a you have standing to sue, a personal injury lawyer needs to know:

What is your legally cognizable interest? This may be as simple as just asking whether you were in the accident. If a minor child or dependent was in the accident, a parent or legal guardian has a legally cognizable interest in pursuing a claim on their behalf. Similarly, the representative of an estate may have a legally cognizable interest in trying to recover the medical bills for an injured party who has since passed away.
Were you injured? Do you need medical treatment? Will you be able to show the extent of your injuries through medical records and bills?

At risk of stating the obvious, there can be no personal injury claim without an injury. For example, if another driver dings your bumper and scratches some paint you were not otherwise hurt, you have a property damage claim, but not a personal injury claim.

Did you name the proper defendant in the lawsuit? Part of standing is that you must sue the proper party. If you were rear-ended by a driver who was texting on their phone, you want to sue the driver because that is the person whose negligence caused your injury. However, the manufacturer of the driver’s phone would not be a proper defendant.
Will a favorable court decision redress your injury? In a personal injury claim, the court can order the defendant to pay your damages, such as your medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. The court cannot, however, suspend the defendant’s driver’s license or order them to jail as part of a personal injury claim. Those actions can only be brought by the state or local government in venues like traffic or criminal court. source

When the Case Was Initially Filed in An Improper County

The details of California’s choice-of-venue framework are beyond the scope of this article. That said, upon initial receipt of a case, counsel should take a moment to carefully analyze the allegations of the complaint as to venue, to determine whether potential grounds for transfer via this method exist.

Code of Civil Procedure section 396b provides for mandatory transfer of a case that has been filed in the wrong court. Such a motion must be made at the outset of a case, in the time to file a responsive pleading.[i] A motion to transfer on these grounds is made in the transferor court.[ii]

No default may be taken against a party that has filed a motion to transfer while the motion is pending.[iii] On such a motion it is the moving defendant’s burden to present declarations to establish why the filing court was improper.[iv] The motion is granted when the defendant negates the grounds for a venue in the county of filing by the plaintiff.[v]

A situation can arise when a plaintiff selects a venue under Code of Civil Procedure section 395, subdivision (a), which allows an action to be filed in the county in which the defendant resides. Importantly, under this provision, in a multiple defendant case, the action can be filed in a county where any defendant resides.[vi] This creates a potential for a plaintiff to name a “sham” defendant—a defendant against which the plaintiff does not intend to actually prevail, but rather was named solely to permit filing in that defendant’s county of residence.

California caselaw is thin on a defendant’s ability to overcome this tactic, but at least one older case exists, Minyard v. Superior Court.[vii] In Minyard, the plaintiff, Holt, filed a complaint in the City & County of San Francisco, alleging she had been injured when the taxicab in which she was riding collided with a pickup truck in the City of Napa, located in Napa County.[viii] She named as defendants Yellow Cab Company, Minyard, Titmus, and Langer.[ix] She alleged Yellow Cab Company, Minyard, and Titmus owned and operated the taxi in which she was riding, and that Langer owned and operated the pickup truck.[x] Langer moved to change venue to Napa County, and the trial court denied his motion.[xi] The court of appeal then granted a writ of mandate and ultimately held the motion should have been granted.[xii]

Minyard based its decision on the uncontested evidence which was presented with the motion. This evidence established the accident occurred in Napa County; Minyard was the owner of the taxi; his employee, Titmus, was driving it at the time of the accident; Langer was the owner and driver of the pickup truck; and Minyard, Titmus, and Langer were residents of Napa County.[xiii] The evidence further established that, while the corporate defendant Yellow Cab Company was a resident of San Francisco, Minyard had been operating his own separate business called “Yellow Cab Co.” in the City of Napa.[xiv] The motion was also supported by an affidavit from an officer of Yellow Cab Company, stating it did not own the taxi involved in the accident.

Thus, as Minyard explained, “[w]ithout the inclusion of Yellow Cab Company, a corporation, as a defendant there could not possibly be any question that Langer had a clear right to the requested change of venue.”[xv] The trial court had, however, concluded because the face of the complaint alleged that Yellow Cab Company was responsible for the accident, it was bound to treat venue in San Francisco as proper.[xvi]

Minyard held this was error. Rather, as Code of Civil Procedure section 395 provides, “if any person is improperly joined as a defendant, …his residence must not be considered in determining the proper place for trial of the action.”[xvii] Minyard explained how this applies in two situations, both when a complaint fails to state a cause of action against a defendant, and “where the nonresident moving party concedes that a cause of action is formally alleged against the resident defendant but claims that the cause of action, in reality, does not exist.”[xviii] As the uncontroverted evidence before the court established that the sole defendant creating venue in San Francisco had been improperly sued, Minyard concluded that the matter should have been transferred.[xix] Minyard itself followed two older cases, Karst v. Seller, and Lachman Co. v. Central Cal. Berry Growers’ Assn.[xx], in reaching its conclusion. Minyard does not appear to have ever been cited a subsequent case, and no known case appears to contradict its conclusion or approach. It thus remains mandatory, binding authority.[xxi] Accordingly, in a “sham” defendant situation, if available at the first outset of a case, defense counsel should consider obtaining appropriate supporting declarations to argue under Minyard the “sham” defendant should not be considered for venue purposes.

Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 397, subdivision (a), also provides for discretionary transfer of a case filed in the wrong county. The important difference of this mechanism—besides its discretionary instead of mandatory nature—is that it may be filed at any reasonable time, unaffected by the strict timing requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 396b.[xxii] Transfer under this statute may therefore be viable when later factual development establishes grounds to attack a “sham” defendant. source

Standing to Sue

Standing is a threshold requirement that a party must meet in order to maintain a lawsuit or to support that party’s participation in the case. “Any litigant must demonstrate that he or she has standing to invoke the power of the court to determine the merits of an issue.” Vaughan v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 740 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, “[i]n essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).

To establish standing to sue, a plaintiff must have a “legitimate or sufficient interest at stake in the controversy that will be affected by the outcome of the litigation.” DeSantis v. Fla. Educ. Ass’n, 306 So. 3d 1202, 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (quoting Equity Res. v. Cty. of Leon, 643 So. 2d 1112, 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)).

Test for Standing

When determining whether a plaintiff has standing, courts consider these three elements:

First, a plaintiff must demonstrate an “injury in fact,” which is “concrete,” “distinct and palpable,” and “actual or imminent.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990). Second, a plaintiff must establish “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Third, a plaintiff must show “a ‘substantial likelihood’ that the requested relief will remedy the alleged injury in fact.” [Vermont Agency of Natural Res. v. Stevens, [529 U.S. 765, 771] [(2000)].

State v. J.P., 907 So. 2d 1101, 1113 n.4 (Fla. 2004) (internal citations edited).

To have standing, a plaintiff must have “a personal stake in the outcome of the proceeding, such as an injury that may be redressed by the suit.” See Sun State Utils., Inc. v. Destin Water Users, Inc., 696 So. 2d 944, 945 n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). That injury has to be “distinct and palpable, not abstract or hypothetical.” Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co., 73 So. 3d 91, 117 (Fla. 2011). See also McCall v. Scott, 199 So. 3d 359, 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (explaining that speculative and conclusory allegations of harm cannot confer standing).

Standing is implicated in every lawsuit so cases addressing this issue are varied. See, e.g., Bd. of Adjustment v. Marelli, 728 So. 2d 1197, 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“A multitude of cases recognize that neighboring property owners affected by zoning changes have standing to challenge the changes.”); Khazaal v. Browning, 707 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (the grantor of a security interest being foreclosed has a sufficient stake in the litigation); Peregood v. Cosmides, 663 So. 2d 665, 668–69 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (minor “established a significant interest and demonstrated the necessary injury in fact to establish standing to challenge his [own] adoption.”); Passell v. Watts, 794 So. 2d 651, 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (intended third-party beneficiaries of will had standing to bring legal malpractice action if they could show that the testator’s intent as expressed in the will was frustrated by the negligence of the testator’s attorney).

Standing to Assert the Rights of Third Parties

“Ordinarily, of course, a litigant must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties.” United States Dep’t of Labor v. Triplett, 494 U.S. 715, 720 (1990) (quotation omitted). However, there are some notable but narrow exceptions to this rule, where litigants have been allowed to assert the rights of third parties. For example:

Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 161-62 (1990) (“Although we have never discussed the concept of ‘next friend’ standing at length, it has long been an accepted basis for jurisdiction in certain circumstances. Most frequently, ‘next friends’ appear in court on behalf of detained prisoners who are unable, usually because of mental incompetence or inaccessibility, to seek relief themselves.”);

Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass’n, 484 U.S. 383, 392-93 (1988) (quotation omitted) (“[I]n the First Amendment context, ‘[l]itigants . . . are permitted to challenge a statute not because their own rights of free expression are violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption that the statute’s very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression.’”);

Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 195 (1976) (quotation omitted) (standing where there was a close relationship between the rights of the litigant and the rights of third parties “that would be ‘diluted or adversely affected’ should her constitutional challenge fail and the statutes remain in force.”);

Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (1976) (allowing physicians to assert the rights of women patients against interference with their right to an abortion);

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 481 (1965) (allowing physicians to assert the rights of women patients against interference with their right to use contraceptives);

Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249, 259 (1953) (owner of real estate subject to racial covenant granted standing to challenge such covenant in part because she was “the one in whose charge and keeping [reposed] the power to continue to use her property to discriminate or to discontinue such use.”).

Standing to Defend

“While the concept of ‘standing’ generally concerns the right of a party to sue, it also applies to a person’s right to defend.” RHPC, Inc. v. Gardner, 533 So. 2d 312, 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). “Few persons volunteer to defend an action that is not brought against them. Even so, the doctrine applies and a person must have an interest in the subject matter of or relief sought by an action to have the right to defend it. If a person has an interest that may be adversely affected by the outcome of an action in which he was not sued by the plaintiff, he may intervene to protect his interest.” Id. (quotation omitted).

Standing Issues within a Proceeding

Standing issues can also arise during certain proceedings within a pending action. For example, a party, as well as the person subpoenaed, has standing to seek an order quashing a subpoena upon a showing of unreasonableness and oppressiveness. Sunrise Shopping Center, Inc. v. Allied Stores Corp., 270 So. 2d 32, 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). However, only the person served has standing to seek an order quashing service of process. Kaufman v. Metro Limo Fund, Inc., 503 So. 2d 967, 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

How Standing is Determined

Standing is a question of law, which is decided by the presiding judge. See McCall v. Scott, 199 So. 3d 359, 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). “Whether a party has standing to bring an action is a preliminary matter to be decided on the basis of the pleadings filed in that particular case.” In re Huff, 109 B.R. 506, 509 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1989) (citation omitted). “When standing is challenged on the basis of the pleadings, the Court must accept as true all material allegations and construe them in favor of the party whose standing is challenged.” Id. (citing Pennell v. City of San Jose, 108 S. Ct. 849, 855 (1988)).

However, it is important to remember that the issue of standing may be waived if not raised at the trial level. See Krivanek v. Take Back Tampa Political Comm., 625 So. 2d 840, 842 (Fla. 1993) (“The issue of standing should have been raised as an affirmative defense before the trial court, and Krivanek’s failure to do so constitutes a waiver of that defense, precluding her from raising that issue now.”). source

What Is Legal Standing and What Are the Elements of Standing to Sue?

To pursue a personal injury lawsuit in a Los Angeles court, the injured victim must have legal standing to sue. Let’s look at the legal standing to sue and its three elements with Ehline Law and our personal injury attorneys.

What Is Legal Standing to Sue?

Standing refers to an individual’s capacity to pursue a lawsuit. For example, a person suffering injuries in a car accident caused by the other driver’s negligence has legal standing to bring a civil action against the negligent party. A person with legal standing is a person who has an interest in how the case turns out and how much compensation they receive for the damages incurred.

Standing to sue does not mean that the defendant is guilty. It is a legal concept that allows the person filing a lawsuit to prove their injuries resulted from the defendant’s actions and recover compensation.

The Constitution addresses the standing to sue for cases in Federal courts. However, states have their rulings and laws that affect how state courts determine the standing to sue.

What Are the Elements of Standing to Sue?

Three elements of standing to sue help determine whether an individual has a legal right to pursue compensation. These include the following.

Injury in Fact

The first of the three elements includes a physical injury, meaning the plaintiff must have suffered injuries in an accident for which they can pursue monetary and non-money damages, including medical bills, lost income, and property damage.

There is no legal standing for hypothetical claims or speculative injuries. It must be an actual injury the defendant caused, and the plaintiff must prove that through evidence. The injury must occur before the plaintiff can file a lawsuit.

Standing to Sue

Causation

When considering causation, the judge or the jury in court does not decide whether or not the defendant is liable for your injuries or damages. They view the evidence provided during pleadings to help determine the reasonable likelihood of a link between the defendant’s behavior and the plaintiff’s injuries.

The court will consider the evidence provided to assess whether you would’ve sustained injuries if the defendant didn’t act in the way they did. If there is no link between the defendant’s conduct and your injuries, you may be unable to prove standing to pursue a claim or lawsuit.

Redressability

Redressability refers to the court’s ability to provide relief to the plaintiff for the injuries sustained by the defendant. When an accident occurs, and the injured victim turns to the court for help, the court cannot undo the accident. Still, they can offer relief by holding the defendant liable for their misconduct and awarding compensation for the damages suffered.

The damages a court can award may include the following:

Victim’s past and present medical bills
Victim’s future medical expenses
In-home medical care or nursing costs
Lost wages
Loss of earning capacity
Pain and suffering
Emotional distress and mental anguish
Costs associated with victim’s disabilities
Reduced quality of life
Loss of enjoyment.

During the end of the trial, when the jurors find the defendant liable for the plaintiff’s injury, they must decide the value of damages. The damages awarded depend on the injuries sustained and vary from one personal injury case to the other, which is why it is important to discuss your case with an experienced personal injury attorney.

Examples of Personal Injury Cases Pertaining to Standing to Sue

Let’s look at a few examples to illustrate how an individual may have the standing to sue another party.

Example 1: Slip and Fall at a Grocery Store

Jack is walking in the frozen section aisle of a grocery store when he slips, trips, and falls due to a wet floor from a nearby broken freezer, resulting in serious back injuries.

In this case, Jack will likely have standing to sue because:

Jack suffered an injury
The store owner most likely was negligent as they didn’t fix the freezer, mop the floor, or place a warning sign
Compensation would help cover his damages and make him financially whole.

Example 2: Medical Malpractice

John goes to a hospital for surgery and faces discomfort and internal bleeding soon after. After a few tests, the doctors discovered that the surgeon was negligent as he incorrectly placed the medical device inside.

John will likely have the standing to sue the negligent surgeon because he is suffering from internal bleeding; the tests show that the surgeon was negligent; compensation would help cover financial, emotional, and psychological losses from the injuries.

Example 3: Car Accident

Marco’s office colleague died in a car accident after his vehicle got hit by a drunk driver, but Marco will not have legal standing to sue for his colleague’s wrongful death.

Even though Marco shared a close relationship with his office colleague, is in emotional distress, and the driver is responsible for his colleague’s death, Marco doesn’t satisfy the redressability requirement.

The law does not consider Marco a surviving or distant family member, which is why he cannot pursue damages in a wrongful death lawsuit. The court also cannot compensate Marco for his loss since the law does not permit it.

However, his colleague’s family may satisfy the requirements of standing to sue and pursue a wrongful death claim against the drunk driver.

Can a Person Lack the Legal Standing to Sue Even Though They Have a Valid Case?

It is possible for a person to have a valid case but lack the standing to sue. For example, minors may satisfy all the legal requirements of filing a lawsuit but do not have legal standing under the law. Their parents, guardians, or court-appointed representatives may pursue a lawsuit on their behalf.

Besides minors, individuals lacking mental capacity also may not have legal standing. The court may appoint a conservator, or their power of attorney can pursue a civil action on behalf of the incapacitated person. source

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The concept of “standing” broadly refers to a litigant’s right to have a court rule upon the merits of particular claims for which he seeks judicial relief. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975) ( “In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” ); Black’s Law Dictionary 1536 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “standing” as “a party’s right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right” ). ">1 The Supreme Court has held that, as a threshold procedural matter, Federal courts must necessarily resolve standing inquiries before proceeding to the merits of a lawsuit. See, e.g., Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 732 (2008). In fact, a court may raise the issue of standing sua sponte (i.e., of its own accord) in order to ensure that it has jurisdiction, even if no party to the lawsuit contests standing. See, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 534 U.S. 103, 110 (2001) (per curiam). Although the Supreme Court must examine a litigant’s standing when the lower court has erroneously assumed that standing exists, it will not investigate standing sua sponte in order to rule upon an issue that a lower court denied the litigant standing to bring before the court. Id. ">2 a litigant must have standing in order to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court so that the court may exercise its “remedial powers on his behalf.” Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rts. Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38 (1976) (quoting Warth, 422 U.S. at 498–99). See also Davis, 554 U.S. at 732; Simon, 426 U.S. at 37 ( “No principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies. The concept of standing is part of this limitation.” ) (citation omitted); Warth, 422 U.S. at 498–99 ( “In its constitutional dimension, standing imports justiciability: whether the plaintiff has made out a ‘case or controversy’ between himself and the defendant within the meaning of Art. III.” ). The Court has occasionally invoked the English common law tradition as supporting its inquiry into a litigant’s standing. See, e.g., Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 132 (2011) ( “In the English legal tradition, the need to redress an injury resulting from a specific dispute taught the efficacy of judicial resolution and gave legitimacy to judicial decrees. . . . The Framers paid heed to these lessons.” ). ">3 In general, for a party to establish Article III standing, he must allege (and ultimately prove) that he has a genuine stake in the outcome of the case because he has personally suffered (or will imminently suffer): (1) a concrete and particularized injury; (2) that is traceable to the allegedly unlawful actions of the opposing party; and (3) that is redressable by a favorable judicial decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992) (listing the elements of standing). For further discussion on the elements of Article III standing, see ArtIII.S2.C1.6.4.1 Overview of Lujan Test. ">4 These requirements seek to ensure that federal courts do not exceed their Article III power to decide actual “cases” or “controversies.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102 (1998) ( “Article III, § 2, of the Constitution extends the ‘judicial Power’ of the United States only to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’ We have always taken this to mean cases and controversies of the sort traditionally amenable to and resolved by the judicial process.” ). ">5

The Court has held that the burden of establishing standing falls upon each party who seeks a distinct form of judicial relief, The Supreme Court has indicated that if one party to a lawsuit has standing, other entities can join as parties without having to satisfy independently the demands of Article III, provided those parties do not seek a distinct form of relief from the party with standing. E.g., Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 446 (2009) (determining that, because a school superintendent had standing to challenge lower court decisions in which he was named a defendant, the Court did not need to consider whether interveners, who were state legislators, had standing); Davis, 554 U.S. at 724 (requiring a litigant to have standing for each form of relief sought); Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Instit. Rts., Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 52 n.2 (2006) ( “[T]he presence of one party with standing is sufficient to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement.” ); Director v. Perini N. River Assocs., 459 U.S. 297, 305 (1983) (stating that a justiciable controversy existed because an injured employee who sought coverage under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act was a party respondent before the court and had standing, and thus there was no need to determine whether the Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, as the official responsible for administration and enforcement of the Act, had standing). ">6 including a party initiating a lawsuit, FW/PBS Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) ( “[P]etitioners in this case must allege . . . facts essential to show jurisdiction. If they fail to make the necessary allegations, they have no standing.” ) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). ">7 intervening in a lawsuit, A party seeking to intervene in a lawsuit (i.e., seeking to join a lawsuit already in progress) as a matter of right must have Article III standing to seek judicial relief that differs from that sought by the other litigants with standing. Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., No. 16-605, slip op. at 6 (U.S. June 5, 2017); Wittman v. Personhuballah, 578 U.S. 539, 543 (2016). ">8 or appealing a lower court decision. Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 56 (1986).

The Supreme Court also addressed standing on appeal in a 2011 case in which government employees that had obtained a favorable judgment on the basis of qualified immunity sought to appeal a lower court’s ruling that their conduct had violated the Constitution. The Court held that these officials had Article III standing because they had a personal stake in seeing the ruling overturned, as its mere existence could lead to the risk of future liability for them. Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 703 (2011) ( “If the official regularly engages in that conduct as part of his job . . . he suffers injury caused by the adverse constitutional ruling. So long as it continues in effect, he must either change the way he performs his duties or risk a meritorious damages action.” ).

Standing on appeal may also be based on an alleged injury arising from the decision below—for example, where the lower court had ordered the appealing party to comply with a government demand that would injure that party, and overturning the lower court’s decision would redress the injury by absolving the appealing party of an obligation to comply with the demand. See Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, No. 19-7 slip op. at 9 (U.S. June 29, 2020) (stating that a petitioner had “appellate standing” where the petitioner suffered a “concrete injury” that was “traceable to the decision below” and could be redressed by the Court). See also West Virginia v. Env’t Prot. Agency, No. 20-1530, slip op. at 14 (U.S. June 30, 2022).

">9 Each of these parties must make an appropriate showing during each stage of the litigation Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013); Davis, 554 U.S. at 734 ( “[A] plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press and for each form of relief sought. . . . While the proof to establish standing increases as the suit proceeds, the standing inquiry remains focused on whether the party invoking jurisdiction had the requisite stake in the outcome when the suit was filed.” ) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). See also Nat’l Org. for Women v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 255–56 (1994) (observing that, at the pleading stage, the plaintiff may have standing sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss if he sets forth “general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct” ) (citation omitted); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (noting that the plaintiff’s burden of proof on the standing issue differs depending on whether the case is at the pleading stage, the plaintiff is responding to a motion for summary judgment, or the case has gone to trial). ">10 that the elements of injury, causation, and redressability existed at the outset of the lawsuit, and continue to exist, Davis, 554 U.S. at 732–33 ( “[I]t is not enough that the requisite interest exist at the outset. ‘To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time complaint is filed.’” (quoting Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997)). If an injury no longer exists as the litigation progresses, the court may also lack jurisdiction under the related doctrine of mootness. See ArtIII.S2.C1.8.1 Overview of Mootness Doctrine to ArtIII.S2.C1.8.9 Class Action Litigation and Mootness. ">11 for each claim Davis, 554 U.S. at 734 ( “[A] plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press and for each form of relief sought.” ) (internal quotation marks omitted). ">12 and for each form of relief sought. See, e.g., Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983) ( “Lyons fares no better if it be assumed that his pending damages suit affords him Art. III standing to seek an injunction as a remedy for the claim arising out of the October 1976 events. The equitable remedy is unavailable absent a showing of irreparable injury, a requirement that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again . . . ” ). ">13 A litigant’s failure to establish standing to sue may result in dismissal of his distinct claims for relief without a decision on the merits of those claims. E.g., Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 502 (1975) (stating that if “the plaintiff’s standing does not adequately appear from all materials of record, the complaint must be dismissed” ). But see Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161, slip op. at 21 (U.S. June 18, 2018) (declining to direct dismissal of a partisan gerrymandering case that involved “an unsettled kind of claim . . . the contours and justiciability of which are unresolved” and, therefore, remanding the case for further proceedings). ">14

Since the 1920s, the Supreme Court has offered various justifications for these somewhat amorphous As discussed below, the Court’s standing jurisprudence has been inconsistent in approach over the years. See ArtIII.S2.C1.6.3 Standing Doctrine from 1940s to 1970s. ">15 constitutional limitations on the categories of litigants who can maintain a claim for judicial relief in an Article III federal court. Although the Supreme Court has often stated that the standing inquiry focuses on whether the plaintiff is a proper party to maintain a claim for a particular form of judicial relief in federal court and not on the “issues he wishes to have adjudicated,” the Court has acknowledged the difficulty in separating the plaintiff’s status from the nature of his claims when applying principles of standing. Compare Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rts. Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38 (1976) ( “[S]tanding focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint before a federal court and not on the issues he wished to have adjudicated.” (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99 (1968) (internal quotation marks omitted)), with Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 752 (1984) ( “Typically, however, the standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint’s allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims asserted.” ). ">16 Perhaps the most frequently cited rationale derives from the Constitution’s separation of powers among the branches of government. E.g., Lujan, 504 U.S. at 576. ">17 Issues of standing often arise when a private plaintiff sues the government, seeking to have it act in accordance with the Constitution or other law. See, e.g., Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 222-23 (1974) (holding that an association of officers and enlisted members of the military reserves, as well as individual members, lacked standing to sue as taxpayers in a case arguing that the Incompatibility Clause of Article I forbid certain Members of Congress from holding commissions in the Armed Forces Reserve). Issues of standing may also arise in cases in which a litigant sues a private party under a law providing for a private right of action against a private defendant. E.g., Spokeo Inc., v. Robins 578 U.S. 330, 342 (2016). ">18 But, as the Court has frequently noted, the Constitution makes the political branches—and not the courts—responsible for “vindicating the public interest.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 576 ( “Vindicating the public interest (including the public interest in Government observance of the Constitution and laws) is the function of Congress and the Chief Executive.” ); Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 488 (1923) ( “We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. That question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act. Then the power exercised is that of ascertaining and declaring the law applicable to the controversy.” ); Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803). When reviewing administrative action or inaction of federal agencies, courts must be wary of intruding upon the President’s duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” by ordering the Executive to follow the law. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 577 (citing U.S. Const. art. II, § 3).

The Court has adhered to the standing doctrine even in cases in which no party exists who would have standing to challenge government action or inaction in the courts, noting that the political process is available to those seeking to vindicate generalized grievances. United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 179 (1974).

">19 As a result, unelected judges lack the authority to render advisory opinions as to whether Congress or the Executive has followed the law; they may only decide a specific case brought before the court by a party that has suffered a particularized injury as a result of the government’s actions. See supra note 19. See also Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 693–94 (2013) (characterizing the standing requirement as “an essential limit on [the Court’s] power: It ensures that we act as judges, and do not engage in policymaking properly left to elected representatives.” ). For more on Article III’s bar on advisory opinions and its relationship to standing doctrine, see ArtIII.S2.C1.4.1 Overview of Advisory Opinions. ">20 Such deference to the political branches, particularly in cases raising questions about the separation of powers, Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 408–09 (2013) ( “The law of Article III standing, which is built on separation of powers principles, serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.” ); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982) ( “The judicial power of the United States defined by Art. III is not an unconditional authority to determine the constitutionality of legislative or executive acts.” ); id. at 474 ( “Proper regard for the complex nature of our constitutional structure requires neither that the Judicial Branch shrink from a confrontation with the other two coequal branches of the Federal Government, nor that it hospitably accept for adjudication claims of constitutional violation by other branches of government where the claimant has not suffered cognizable injury.” ). Thus, the Court applies the standing requirements most stringently when litigants challenge the constitutionality of an action or omission by one or both of the political branches of government. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 819–20 (1997) ( “[O]ur standing inquiry has been especially rigorous when reaching the merits of the dispute would force us to decide whether an action taken by one of the other two branches of the Federal Government was unconstitutional.” ); Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 100, 101 (1968) ( “The question whether a particular person is a proper party to maintain the action does not, by its own force, raise separation of powers problems related to improper judicial interference in areas committed to other branches of the Federal Government. Such problems arise, if at all, only from the substantive issues the individual seeks to have adjudicated.” ). The Court later stated that “Flast failed to recognize that [standing] doctrine has a separation of powers component, which keeps courts within certain traditional bounds vis-a-vis the other branches . . . ” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353 n.3 (1996). In the Court’s early years, Chief Justice John Marshall noted that if federal courts could hear “every question under the Constitution,” rather than traditional “cases” or “controversies,” then federal courts would have jurisdiction over many issues that should be the subject of legislative discussion and decision. 4 Papers of John Marshall 95 (Charles Cullen ed., 1984) ( “If the judicial power extended to every question under the Constitution it would involve almost every subject proper for legislative discussion and decision; if to every question under the laws and treaties of the United States it would involve almost every subject on which the executive could act. The division of power [among the branches of government] could exist no longer, and the other departments would be swallowed up by the judiciary.” ). The French sociologist and political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville once noted the benefits of the U.S. federal judiciary’s requirement that a litigant have a direct stake in the outcome of legal proceedings to maintain a lawsuit, stating that: “It will be seen, also, that by leaving it to private interest to censure the law, and by intimately uniting the trial of the law with the trial of an individual, legislation is protected from wanton assaults and from the daily aggressions of party spirit. The errors of the legislator are exposed only to meet a real want; and it is always a positive and appreciable fact that must serve as the basis of a prosecution.” 1 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America 102 (Philips Bradley, ed., 1945). ">21 reflects the Court’s understanding of the “limited . . . role of the courts in a democratic society,” Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 133 (2011) ( “Continued adherence to the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III maintains the public’s confidence in an unelected but restrained Federal Judiciary.” ). ">22 as well as its determination that federal courts should hear only those types of cases that the English judicial system would historically have considered suitable for judicial resolution. Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 337 ( “Standing to sue is a doctrine rooted in the traditional understanding of a case or controversy.” ); Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 492 (2009) ( “In limiting the judicial power to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies,’ Article III of the Constitution restricts it to the traditional role of Anglo-American courts, which is to redress or prevent actual or imminently threatened injury to persons caused by private or official violation of law.” ) ">23 And separation of powers concerns have also motivated the Court’s conclusion that Article III limits Congress’s ability to confer standing on plaintiffs to sue the government by enacting statutes containing “citizen-suit” provisions. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 577. ">24 Such case law has reasoned that permitting plaintiffs who do not have a personal and direct stake in the outcome of a case to sue under one of these provisions would effectively allow the Legislative Branch to intrude upon the Executive Branch’s duty to enforce the law. Id. ( “To permit Congress to convert the undifferentiated public interest in executive officers’ compliance with the law into an ‘individual right’ vindicable in the courts is to permit Congress to transfer from the President to the courts the Chief Executive’s most important constitutional duty, to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’” ) (quoting U.S. Const. art. II, § 3). ">25

Although standing doctrine is grounded primarily in constitutional separation of powers concerns, the Supreme Court has also cited other rationales for its existence that may not be constitutional in nature. Requiring the litigant to have a personal stake in the outcome of his lawsuit ensures that a court will decide complex legal and factual issues in the context of a specific factual situation involving adverse parties who can more clearly illuminate for judges the issues in dispute. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962) (stating that the parties invoking the court’s jurisdiction must have “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.” ). ">26 Even in cases in which adversity between the parties exists, standing doctrine seeks to ensure that federal courts will not exercise the judicial power, which can significantly affect the lives, liberty, and property of others, to resolve generalized grievances brought primarily for the benefit of “concerned bystanders” who seek to vindicate abstract ideological interests (for example, a general interest in the protection of the environment is insufficient to confer standing). United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669, 687 (1973) (stating that the injury-in-fact requirement of standing “prevents the judicial process from becoming no more than a vehicle for the vindication of the value interests of concerned bystanders” ). See also Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 494 (2009) ( “While generalized harm to the forest or the environment will not alone support standing, if that harm in fact affects the recreational or even the mere esthetic interests of the plaintiff, that will suffice.” ); Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 62 (1986); Valley Forge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 472–73 ( “[The standing requirement] tends to assure that the legal questions presented to the court will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action. . . . The [Article III] aspect of standing also reflects a due regard for the autonomy of those persons likely to be most directly affected by a judicial order.” ). ">27 More practical reasons for the standing requirements include a need to reserve the limited resources of the federal courts for concrete disputes; Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167, 191 (2000) ( “Standing doctrine functions to ensure, among other things, that the scarce resources of the federal courts are devoted to those disputes in which the parties have a concrete stake.” ). ">28 the sweeping precedential effects of the Court’s holdings on the merits in constitutional litigation, which can be difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to alter without amending the Constitution; Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 146 (2011) ( “Making the Article III standing inquiry all the more necessary are the significant implications of constitutional litigation, which can result in rules of wide applicability that are beyond Congress’s power to change.” ). ">29 and a need for the court to fashion relief no more broadly than the litigant’s situation requires. Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 222 (1974). ">30

The Supreme Court has also previously recognized certain prudential limitations on the exercise of federal courts’ jurisdiction, which, although lacking constitutional status, may nonetheless result in a court’s refusal to hear a case: (1) when the litigant seeks to assert the rights of third parties not before the court; (2) when the litigant seeks redress for a generalized grievance widely shared by a large number of citizens; and (3) when the litigant challenges government action or inaction and its asserted interests do not fall within the zone of interests arguably protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional provision underlying its claims. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 760 (2013) ( “Even when Article III permits the exercise of federal jurisdiction, prudential considerations demand that the Court insist upon ‘that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.’” (quoting Baker, 369 U.S. at 204); Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 12 (2004) (listing the three types of prudential restraints); Gladstone v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99–100 (1979). ">31 In recent years, however, the Court has questioned the basis of the doctrine of prudential standing. Lexmark Int’l Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 127 n.3 (2014). ">32 The Court has suggested that the bar on generalized grievances is a constitutional (and not prudential) requirement. Id. ">33 Moreover, the Court likewise has determined that a court applying the “zone of interests” test should examine whether the plaintiff’s claim falls within the scope of a statutory provision creating a cause of action. Id. ">34 Furthermore, Congress, through express legislation, may abrogate these prudential standing requirements, to the extent that they remain viable and are not mandated by the Constitution. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975) ( “Congress may grant an express right of action to persons who otherwise would be barred by prudential standing rules.” ). ">35

The following essays trace the development of Article III standing doctrine in Supreme Court jurisprudence from its origins in the 1920s to the development of the modern doctrine and its key elements of injury, causation, and redressability. They then examine select topics that implicate the doctrine, including cases in which a plaintiff seeks to maintain standing to challenge government action or inaction by relying solely upon his status as a taxpayer, as well as the various forms of representational standing that a litigant who has not himself sustained injury may rely upon when asserting the rights of people not before the court. Finally, they conclude with an overview of standing for Members of Congress, congressional control of standing, and what remains of the concept of prudential standing. Federal rules for standing do not apply in state courts, which may have their own rules not addressed in this essay. Asarco, Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989) ( “We have recognized often that the constraints of Article III do not apply to state courts, and accordingly the state courts are not bound by the limitations of a case or controversy or other federal rules of justiciability even when they address issues of federal law, as when they are called upon to interpret the Constitution or . . . a federal statute.” ). However, when a state court enters a judgment in a case in which the plaintiffs would not have had standing had they brought the case in federal court, a party may have standing to appeal that judgment in federal court if the judgment rests upon an allegedly incorrect interpretation of federal law and causes the appellant direct injury. Id. at 623–24 ( “When a state court has issued a judgment in a case where plaintiffs in the original action had no standing to sue under the principles governing the federal courts, we may exercise our jurisdiction on certiorari if the judgment of the state court causes direct, specific, and concrete injury to the parties who petition for our review, where the requisites of a case or controversy are also met.” ) (citations omitted). ">36

1

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975) ( “In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” ); Black’s Law Dictionary 1536 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “standing” as “a party’s right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right” ).

2

Federal courts must necessarily resolve standing inquiries before proceeding to the merits of a lawsuit. See, e.g., Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 732 (2008). In fact, a court may raise the issue of standing sua sponte (i.e., of its own accord) in order to ensure that it has jurisdiction, even if no party to the lawsuit contests standing. See, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 534 U.S. 103, 110 (2001) (per curiam). Although the Supreme Court must examine a litigant’s standing when the lower court has erroneously assumed that standing exists, it will not investigate standing sua sponte in order to rule upon an issue that a lower court denied the litigant standing to bring before the court. Id.

3

Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rts. Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38 (1976) (quoting Warth, 422 U.S. at 498–99). See also Davis, 554 U.S. at 732; Simon, 426 U.S. at 37 ( “No principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies. The concept of standing is part of this limitation.” ) (citation omitted); Warth, 422 U.S. at 498–99 ( “In its constitutional dimension, standing imports justiciability: whether the plaintiff has made out a ‘case or controversy’ between himself and the defendant within the meaning of Art. III.” ). The Court has occasionally invoked the English common law tradition as supporting its inquiry into a litigant’s standing. See, e.g., Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 132 (2011) ( “In the English legal tradition, the need to redress an injury resulting from a specific dispute taught the efficacy of judicial resolution and gave legitimacy to judicial decrees. . . . The Framers paid heed to these lessons.” ).

4

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992) (listing the elements of standing). For further discussion on the elements of Article III standing, see ArtIII.S2.C1.6.4.1 Overview of Lujan Test.

5

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102 (1998) ( “Article III, § 2, of the Constitution extends the ‘judicial Power’ of the United States only to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’ We have always taken this to mean cases and controversies of the sort traditionally amenable to and resolved by the judicial process.” ).

6

The Supreme Court has indicated that if one party to a lawsuit has standing, other entities can join as parties without having to satisfy independently the demands of Article III, provided those parties do not seek a distinct form of relief from the party with standing. E.g., Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 446 (2009) (determining that, because a school superintendent had standing to challenge lower court decisions in which he was named a defendant, the Court did not need to consider whether interveners, who were state legislators, had standing); Davis, 554 U.S. at 724 (requiring a litigant to have standing for each form of relief sought); Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Instit. Rts., Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 52 n.2 (2006) ( “[T]he presence of one party with standing is sufficient to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement.” ); Director v. Perini N. River Assocs., 459 U.S. 297, 305 (1983) (stating that a justiciable controversy existed because an injured employee who sought coverage under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act was a party respondent before the court and had standing, and thus there was no need to determine whether the Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, as the official responsible for administration and enforcement of the Act, had standing).

7

FW/PBS Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) ( “[P]etitioners in this case must allege . . . facts essential to show jurisdiction. If they fail to make the necessary allegations, they have no standing.” ) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

8

A party seeking to intervene in a lawsuit (i.e., seeking to join a lawsuit already in progress) as a matter of right must have Article III standing to seek judicial relief that differs from that sought by the other litigants with standing. Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., No. 16-605, slip op. at 6 (U.S. June 5, 2017); Wittman v. Personhuballah, 578 U.S. 539, 543 (2016).

9

Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 56 (1986).The Supreme Court also addressed standing on appeal in a 2011 case in which government employees that had obtained a favorable judgment on the basis of qualified immunity sought to appeal a lower court’s ruling that their conduct had violated the Constitution. The Court held that these officials had Article III standing because they had a personal stake in seeing the ruling overturned, as its mere existence could lead to the risk of future liability for them. Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 703 (2011) ( “If the official regularly engages in that conduct as part of his job . . . he suffers injury caused by the adverse constitutional ruling. So long as it continues in effect, he must either change the way he performs his duties or risk a meritorious damages action.” ).

10

Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013); Davis, 554 U.S. at 734 ( “[A] plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press and for each form of relief sought. . . . While the proof to establish standing increases as the suit proceeds, the standing inquiry remains focused on whether the party invoking jurisdiction had the requisite stake in the outcome when the suit was filed.” ) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). See also Nat’l Org. for Women v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 255–56 (1994) (observing that, at the pleading stage, the plaintiff may have standing sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss if he sets forth “general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct” ) (citation omitted); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (noting that the plaintiff’s burden of proof on the standing issue differs depending on whether the case is at the pleading stage, the plaintiff is responding to a motion for summary judgment, or the case has gone to trial).

11

Davis, 554 U.S. at 732–33 ( “[I]t is not enough that the requisite interest exist at the outset. ‘To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time complaint is filed.’” (quoting Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997)). If an injury no longer exists as the litigation progresses, the court may also lack jurisdiction under the related doctrine of mootness. See ArtIII.S2.C1.8.1 Overview of Mootness Doctrine to ArtIII.S2.C1.8.9 Class Action Litigation and Mootness.

12

Davis, 554 U.S. at 734 ( “[A] plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press and for each form of relief sought.” ) (internal quotation marks omitted).

13

See, e.g., Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983) ( “Lyons fares no better if it be assumed that his pending damages suit affords him Art. III standing to seek an injunction as a remedy for the claim arising out of the October 1976 events. The equitable remedy is unavailable absent a showing of irreparable injury, a requirement that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again . . . ” ).

14

E.g., Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 502 (1975) (stating that if “the plaintiff’s standing does not adequately appear from all materials of record, the complaint must be dismissed” ). But see Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161, slip op. at 21 (U.S. June 18, 2018) (declining to direct dismissal of a partisan gerrymandering case that involved “an unsettled kind of claim . . . the contours and justiciability of which are unresolved” and, therefore, remanding the case for further proceedings).

15

As discussed below, the Court’s standing jurisprudence has been inconsistent in approach over the years. See ArtIII.S2.C1.6.3 Standing Doctrine from 1940s to 1970s.

16

Although the Supreme Court has often stated that the standing inquiry focuses on whether the plaintiff is a proper party to maintain a claim for a particular form of judicial relief in federal court and not on the “issues he wishes to have adjudicated,” the Court has acknowledged the difficulty in separating the plaintiff’s status from the nature of his claims when applying principles of standing. Compare Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rts. Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38 (1976) ( “[S]tanding focuses on the party seeking to get his complaint before a federal court and not on the issues he wished to have adjudicated.” (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99 (1968) (internal quotation marks omitted)), with Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 752 (1984) ( “Typically, however, the standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint’s allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims asserted.” ).

17

E.g., Lujan, 504 U.S. at 576.

18

See, e.g., Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 222-23 (1974) (holding that an association of officers and enlisted members of the military reserves, as well as individual members, lacked standing to sue as taxpayers in a case arguing that the Incompatibility Clause of Article I forbid certain Members of Congress from holding commissions in the Armed Forces Reserve). Issues of standing may also arise in cases in which a litigant sues a private party under a law providing for a private right of action against a private defendant. E.g., Spokeo Inc., v. Robins 578 U.S. 330, 342 (2016).

19

Lujan, 504 U.S. at 576 ( “Vindicating the public interest (including the public interest in Government observance of the Constitution and laws) is the function of Congress and the Chief Executive.” ); Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 488 (1923) ( “We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. That question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act. Then the power exercised is that of ascertaining and declaring the law applicable to the controversy.” ); Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 180 (1803). When reviewing administrative action or inaction of federal agencies, courts must be wary of intruding upon the President’s duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” by ordering the Executive to follow the law. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 577 (citing U.S. Const. art. II, § 3).The Court has adhered to the standing doctrine even in cases in which no party exists who would have standing to challenge government action or inaction in the courts, noting that the political process is available to those seeking to vindicate generalized grievances. United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 179 (1974).

20

See supra note 19. See also Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693, 693–94 (2013) (characterizing the standing requirement as “an essential limit on [the Court’s] power: It ensures that we act as judges, and do not engage in policymaking properly left to elected representatives.” ). For more on Article III’s bar on advisory opinions and its relationship to standing doctrine, see ArtIII.S2.C1.4.1 Overview of Advisory Opinions.

21

Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 408–09 (2013) ( “The law of Article III standing, which is built on separation of powers principles, serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches.” ); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982) ( “The judicial power of the United States defined by Art. III is not an unconditional authority to determine the constitutionality of legislative or executive acts.” ); id. at 474 ( “Proper regard for the complex nature of our constitutional structure requires neither that the Judicial Branch shrink from a confrontation with the other two coequal branches of the Federal Government, nor that it hospitably accept for adjudication claims of constitutional violation by other branches of government where the claimant has not suffered cognizable injury.” ). Thus, the Court applies the standing requirements most stringently when litigants challenge the constitutionality of an action or omission by one or both of the political branches of government. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 819–20 (1997) ( “[O]ur standing inquiry has been especially rigorous when reaching the merits of the dispute would force us to decide whether an action taken by one of the other two branches of the Federal Government was unconstitutional.” ); Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 100, 101 (1968) ( “The question whether a particular person is a proper party to maintain the action does not, by its own force, raise separation of powers problems related to improper judicial interference in areas committed to other branches of the Federal Government. Such problems arise, if at all, only from the substantive issues the individual seeks to have adjudicated.” ). The Court later stated that “Flast failed to recognize that [standing] doctrine has a separation of powers component, which keeps courts within certain traditional bounds vis-a-vis the other branches . . . ” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353 n.3 (1996). In the Court’s early years, Chief Justice John Marshall noted that if federal courts could hear “every question under the Constitution,” rather than traditional “cases” or “controversies,” then federal courts would have jurisdiction over many issues that should be the subject of legislative discussion and decision. 4 Papers of John Marshall 95 (Charles Cullen ed., 1984) ( “If the judicial power extended to every question under the Constitution it would involve almost every subject proper for legislative discussion and decision; if to every question under the laws and treaties of the United States it would involve almost every subject on which the executive could act. The division of power [among the branches of government] could exist no longer, and the other departments would be swallowed up by the judiciary.” ). The French sociologist and political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville once noted the benefits of the U.S. federal judiciary’s requirement that a litigant have a direct stake in the outcome of legal proceedings to maintain a lawsuit, stating that: “It will be seen, also, that by leaving it to private interest to censure the law, and by intimately uniting the trial of the law with the trial of an individual, legislation is protected from wanton assaults and from the daily aggressions of party spirit. The errors of the legislator are exposed only to meet a real want; and it is always a positive and appreciable fact that must serve as the basis of a prosecution.” 1 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America 102 (Philips Bradley, ed., 1945).

22

Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 133 (2011) ( “Continued adherence to the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III maintains the public’s confidence in an unelected but restrained Federal Judiciary.” ).

23

Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 337 ( “Standing to sue is a doctrine rooted in the traditional understanding of a case or controversy.” ); Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 492 (2009) ( “In limiting the judicial power to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies,’ Article III of the Constitution restricts it to the traditional role of Anglo-American courts, which is to redress or prevent actual or imminently threatened injury to persons caused by private or official violation of law.” )

24

Lujan, 504 U.S. at 577.

25

Id. ( “To permit Congress to convert the undifferentiated public interest in executive officers’ compliance with the law into an ‘individual right’ vindicable in the courts is to permit Congress to transfer from the President to the courts the Chief Executive’s most important constitutional duty, to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’” ) (quoting U.S. Const. art. II, § 3).

26

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962) (stating that the parties invoking the court’s jurisdiction must have “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.” ).

27

United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669, 687 (1973) (stating that the injury-in-fact requirement of standing “prevents the judicial process from becoming no more than a vehicle for the vindication of the value interests of concerned bystanders” ). See also Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 494 (2009) ( “While generalized harm to the forest or the environment will not alone support standing, if that harm in fact affects the recreational or even the mere esthetic interests of the plaintiff, that will suffice.” ); Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 62 (1986); Valley Forge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 472–73 ( “[The standing requirement] tends to assure that the legal questions presented to the court will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action. . . . The [Article III] aspect of standing also reflects a due regard for the autonomy of those persons likely to be most directly affected by a judicial order.” ).

28

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167, 191 (2000) ( “Standing doctrine functions to ensure, among other things, that the scarce resources of the federal courts are devoted to those disputes in which the parties have a concrete stake.” ).

29

Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 146 (2011) ( “Making the Article III standing inquiry all the more necessary are the significant implications of constitutional litigation, which can result in rules of wide applicability that are beyond Congress’s power to change.” ).

30

Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 222 (1974).

31

United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 760 (2013) ( “Even when Article III permits the exercise of federal jurisdiction, prudential considerations demand that the Court insist upon ‘that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.’” (quoting Baker, 369 U.S. at 204); Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 12 (2004) (listing the three types of prudential restraints); Gladstone v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99–100 (1979).

32

Lexmark Int’l Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 127 n.3 (2014).

33

Id.

34

Id.

35

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975) ( “Congress may grant an express right of action to persons who otherwise would be barred by prudential standing rules.” ).

36

Federal rules for standing do not apply in state courts, which may have their own rules not addressed in this essay. Asarco, Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989) ( “We have recognized often that the constraints of Article III do not apply to state courts, and accordingly the state courts are not bound by the limitations of a case or controversy or other federal rules of justiciability even when they address issues of federal law, as when they are called upon to interpret the Constitution or . . . a federal statute.” ). However, when a state court enters a judgment in a case in which the plaintiffs would not have had standing had they brought the case in federal court, a party may have standing to appeal that judgment in federal court if the judgment rests upon an allegedly incorrect interpretation of federal law and causes the appellant direct injury. Id. at 623–24 ( “When a state court has issued a judgment in a case where plaintiffs in the original action had no standing to sue under the principles governing the federal courts, we may exercise our jurisdiction on certiorari if the judgment of the state court causes direct, specific, and concrete injury to the parties who petition for our review, where the requisites of a case or controversy are also met.” ) (citations omitted). source

Beloved New York-based journalist Ruschell Boone dead at 48 after cancer battle

The Truth News — Wed, 06 Sep 2023 20:32:49 +0000

Beloved New York-based journalist Ruschell Boone dead at 48 after cancer battle

‘Ruschell had a unique ability to connect with New Yorkers,’ Spectrum News NY1 wrote

journalist Ruschell Boone died on Sunday at age 48 from pancreatic cancer, Spectrum News NY1 announced.

Emmy award-winning journalist Ruschell Boone died on Sunday at age 48 from pancreatic cancer, Spectrum News NY1 announced.

“For 21 years, Ruschell was a member of our staff, as well as a friend and mentor to many,” staffers from the New York City TV station wrote in a touching tribute.

“Ruschell had a unique ability to connect with New Yorkers — through the screen and in person — in a way that made her feel like a trusted friend. Highlighting the city’s diverse communities was always a priority,” the tribute continued. “On June 2, 2022, Ruschell celebrated 20 years at NY1, surrounded by colleagues. Shortly after, she learned she had pancreatic cancer and began a grueling fight.”

Spectrum News NY1 wrote that Boone was open about her journey through the difficult process and regularly updated viewers of her status on social media.

“She made it back to the anchor desk and was joined by the mayor on her first day back,” Spectrum News NY1 wrote.

Boone joined NY1 in 2002 as the station’s Queens reporter, where she became a beloved local figure for “dedicating herself to issues that directly affected residents,” the station wrote.

Boone covered everything from the COVID pandemic, Hurricane Sandy and political events to the annual West Indian-American Day parade.

Ruschell Boone was remembered as an intrepid journalist and beloved colleague. (NY1)

“In 2018, she was the only television reporter to speak live with an underdog candidate for Congress who was about to become world-famous. In fact, she delivered the news to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,” NY1 wrote.

In 2021, she moved from the field to the anchor desk for midday newscast “News All Day.” During Boone’s career, she took home several awards including Best Spot News Reporting from the New York Association of Black Journalists, a New York Press Club Award for Best Feature Reporting, and a New York Emmy Award for her series “New York: Unfiltered.”

“She was devoted to raising awareness about cancer and other health issues. And while she was facing a constant fight of her own, Ruschell felt it was important to extend a hand and help others in their time of need. Wherever Ruschell was, she always made time to laugh, to dance, and to celebrate life,” the station wrote. “A mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister, a journalist, a Jamaican-American, a true New Yorker, Ruschell leaves behind a rich and loving legacy for her family, her friends and her city.”

“Ruschell bravely shared her story and provided hope and inspiration to so many touched by pancreatic cancer. We fondly remember the warmth, joy and light she brought to #PanCANPurpleStride New York City as our emcee on an otherwise cold, rainy day. We’re forever grateful to Ruschell for raising public awareness of the disease and we send our deepest condolences to her family and loved ones,” the group wrote. “PanCAN will honor the memory of Ruschell and everyone affected by continuing to create a world where all patients with pancreatic cancer will thrive.” source

Journalist Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content

The Streisand Effect: Why Hiding Information Backfires

The Streisand Effect: Why Hiding Information Backfires

Key Takeaways

Origins of the Streisand Effect

How long is it going to take before lawyers realize that the simple act of trying to repress something they don’t like online is likely to make it so that something that most people would never, ever see…is now seen by many more people? Let’s call it the Streisand Effect.

Understanding the Streisand Effect

Factors Contributing to the Streisand Effect

Real-Life Examples of the Streisand Effect

Impact and Implications of the Streisand Effect

Strategies to Mitigate the Streisand Effect

Unearthed 1997 Wired Article Predicted The 21st Century With Insane Accuracy

Unearthed 1997 Wired Article Predicted The 21st Century With Insane Accuracy

Key Predictions That Came True:

The Long Boom: A History of the Future, 1980–2020

Predictions from Wired magazine

The Sovereign Future: How a 1997 Book Accurately Predicted 2025

Predictions from The Sovereign Individual

Charlie Kirks Shooter CAUGHT in the Charlie Kirk Assassination

Charlie Kirks Shooter CAUGHT in the Charlie Kirk Assassination

WE AS CHRISTIANS & AMERICANS SHALL FEAR NO MAN, JUSTICE WILL COME ONE WAY OR ANOTHER FROM GOD’S SOVEREIGN HANDS

Robinson was engineering major, university says

New details emerge about Tyler Robinson

Mug shot of Tyler Robinson released

Utah governor says Kirk assassination suspect is believed to have acted alone

FBI Director Kash Patel shares timeline of investigation

Utah governor says Kirk’s assassination ‘is an attack on all of us’

Details of messages on bullet casings revealed

Kirk assassination suspect indicated to a family friend that he was connected to the shooting

The president talked about learning the news of Kirk’s assassination

Suspect in custody in connection with Charlie Kirk shooting is 22-year-old from Utah, AP source says

A news conference is scheduled with the latest on Charlie Kirk investigation

Trump says Charlie Kirk shooting suspect in custody

Video shows alleged gunman fleeing the scene

Who was Charlie Kirk?

Tyler Robinson named suspect in Charlie Kirk shooting, how he was caught

MORE: Manhunt for shooter continues after Charlie Kirk killed in ‘political assassination’

WE HERE AT GOOD SHEPHERD NEWS MEDIA BELIEVE ITS IS OUR OPINION BASED ON THE VIDEO BELOW THAT THE KILLER HAD PARTNERS ON THE INSIDE

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk dies after being shot at Utah college event

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk dies after being shot at Utah college event

“No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie,” Trump posted on his Truth Social account.

Charlie Kirk Shot at Utah University Multiple Times – PRAYERS for CHARLIE KIRK

Charlie Kirk Shot at Utah University Multiple Times – PRAYERS for CHARLIE KIRK

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

CAUTINON THE VIDEO BELOW IS THE REAL VIDEO, ITS DISTURBING AND VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED. DO NOT LET YOUR CHILDREN SEE THIS VIDEO

Trump deployment of troops to quell LA rioters latest page in president’s political playbook

Trump deployment of troops to quell LA rioters latest page in president’s political playbook

‘This is exactly what Donald Trump campaigned on,’ says conservative consultant Nicole Schlinger

BETA MALE (LEFT) VS ALPHA MALE (RIGHT)

What Is Legal Standing and What Are the Elements of Standing to Sue?

Standing to Sue – What is it?

standing Definition

Standing in State Court

Standing in Federal Court

Further Reading

STANDING: WHAT IT IS AND WHY IT MATTERS

Standing In A Personal Injury Case

When the Case Was Initially Filed in An Improper County

Standing to Sue

Test for Standing

Standing to Assert the Rights of Third Parties

Standing to Defend

Standing Issues within a Proceeding

How Standing is Determined

What Is Legal Standing and What Are the Elements of Standing to Sue?

What Is Legal Standing to Sue?

What Are the Elements of Standing to Sue?

Injury in Fact

Standing to Sue

Causation

Redressability

Examples of Personal Injury Cases Pertaining to Standing to Sue

Example 1: Slip and Fall at a Grocery Store

Example 2: Medical Malpractice

Example 3: Car Accident

Can a Person Lack the Legal Standing to Sue Even Though They Have a Valid Case?

Beloved New York-based journalist Ruschell Boone dead at 48 after cancer battle

Beloved New York-based journalist Ruschell Boone dead at 48 after cancer battle

‘Ruschell had a unique ability to connect with New Yorkers,’ Spectrum News NY1 wrote

NY1 has encouraged viewers who want to remember Boone to email notes to RememberingRuschell@charter.com