You’d think, but it comes up surprisingly often, and not always because some right winger is inventing a hypothetical. Remember Texas SB8, the abortion bill with the weird civil enforcement mechanism that explicitly banned any state employee from using it?
The case against it that went to SCOTUS was literally decided on standing - the lawsuit was directed at someone who absolutely could not invoke SB8 and at someone else who had not done so but hypothetically could and was shut down because there was no case and the court allegedly does not rule on hypotheticals but they were free to try again when someone actually tried to use SB8, before going on to rule on hypotheticals in the following years.
TBH, the anti-abortion folks would probably have a much better time going against shield laws, since those are laws literally created to protect companies assisting people in other states to violate that state’s laws.
You’d think, but it comes up surprisingly often, and not always because some right winger is inventing a hypothetical. Remember Texas SB8, the abortion bill with the weird civil enforcement mechanism that explicitly banned any state employee from using it?
The case against it that went to SCOTUS was literally decided on standing - the lawsuit was directed at someone who absolutely could not invoke SB8 and at someone else who had not done so but hypothetically could and was shut down because there was no case and the court allegedly does not rule on hypotheticals but they were free to try again when someone actually tried to use SB8, before going on to rule on hypotheticals in the following years.
TBH, the anti-abortion folks would probably have a much better time going against shield laws, since those are laws literally created to protect companies assisting people in other states to violate that state’s laws.
Isn’t that a little different, since the question before the court was about standing?