Here is the first one:
Caplan v. TRUMP (0:23-cv-61628) District Court, S.D. Florida
Here is the dismissal order:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67 ... n-v-trump/
Lack of standing. I am shocked I tell yah!
Berg got an entire paragraph:Inquiry into standing “is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy
requirement of Article III.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Standing “is a
threshold jurisdictional question which must be addressed prior to and independent of the merits of a
party’s claims.” Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 974 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Steel Co.
v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102 (1998)). Thus, this Court has jurisdiction over a case
only if the plaintiff has standing to sue. See Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204, 207 (3d Cir. 2010).
“In the absence of standing, a court is not free to opine in an advisory capacity about the merits of a
plaintiff’s claims, and the court is powerless to continue.” CAMP Legal Def. Fund., Inc. v. City of
Atlanta, 451 F.3d 1257, 1269 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
Hollander and Drake got cites too.However, an individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individual
is qualified to hold public office. See, e.g., Kerchner, 612 F.3d at 207; Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234,
239 (3d Cir. 2009).
In Berg, the plaintiff, an attorney representing himself, filed a complaint seeking declaratory
and injunctive relief in district court before the 2008 Presidential election, alleging that then-candidate
Barack Obama was ineligible to run for President because he was not a “natural born citizen” within However, an individual citizen does not have standing to challenge whether another individual
is qualified to hold public office. See, e.g., Kerchner, 612 F.3d at 207; Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234,
239 (3d Cir. 2009).
In Berg, the plaintiff, an attorney representing himself, filed a complaint seeking declaratory
and injunctive relief in district court before the 2008 Presidential election, alleging that then-candidate
Barack Obama was ineligible to run for President because he was not a “natural born citizen” within
the meaning of Article II. Berg, 586 F.3d at 237. The district court observed that “standing has been
a consistent barrier to lower courts hearing generalized, undifferentiated claims by voters and
citizens,” and noted various cases in which citizens attempted to challenge a Presidential candidate’s
eligibility for office or other governmental actions but lacked standing. Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp.
2d 509, 517 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (citing, e.g. Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 (1937) (per curiam) (citizen
and member of Supreme Court bar “merely a general interest common to all members of the public”
and lacked standing to challenge appointment and confirmation of Supreme Court Justice)); Jones v.
Bush, 122 F. Supp. 2d 713, 716-18 (N.D. Tex. 2000) (voters did not have standing to assert a Twelfth
Amendment violation that allegedly infringed on their right to cast meaningful votes, and court
explained that “plaintiffs conspicuously fail to demonstrate how they, as opposed to the general voting
population, will feel its effects.”); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 69 (D.N.H. 2008) (voters
lacked standing to challenge Senator John McCain’s eligibility for President and to exclude him from
the Presidential primaries, and court stated that “voters have no standing to complain about the
participation of an ineligible candidate in an election.”)). The court concluded that an alleged injury
“stemming from a presidential candidate's failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural
Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury in fact sufficient
to satisfy Article III standing.” Berg, 574 F. Supp. 2d at 518.