NAME: Virginia House of Delegates, et al., Appellants v. Golden Bethune-Hill, et al.
JOINING: Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch
JOINING: Roberts, Breyer, Kavanaugh
Case CommentaryI agree with the Dissent, once again.
At the end of the year, I am going to have to see how often I agree with the Dissent. Is that part of my nature? Or do I simply disagree with The Court.
Standing (the right to bring forth an action or continue an action on Appeal) Requires:
- Some Specific Harm
- Some Specifiable Action by the Defendant
- The Possibility of Rectification
The Court is evenly split at 5 to 4. It might as well be a tie.
Bicameral: a two chambered legislative body
Given a bicameral legislative body (so, now I am being completely redundant) does one of the body's have standing where two would be required to enact a law?
Does it make any difference if the law in question effects the legislative body, itself... say, due to a re-districting plan?
I'd say yes.
The Court says no.
It all comes down to whether one believes this instance of the legislative body has a vested interest in maintaining its current mix of representatives, which I will say it does.
The Citizens may not have a vested interest. The State may not have a vested interest. The legislature as a whole may not have a vested interest. But clearly, the chamber in question of this multi-chambered legislature does.
Does a Board of Directors have a vested interest in who sits on the Board?
I would say yes.
And therein (to my untrained eye) lays the whole of the case.