Anyone else think the weak link in Leon's ruling is his analysis of the standing requirement? Am I off-base? CC @steve_vladeck @emptywheel
-
-
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq@emptywheel Which part seems unconvincing? On a very quick read, strikes me as just right (per my standing paper)...3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @steve_vladeck
@steve_vladeck@BradMossEsq@emptywheel Yes, agree with Steve. If this is reversed, it won't be on standing it will be merits.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bmaz
@bmaz@BradMossEsq@emptywheel Other possibility: Reverse on APA preclusion; send back for merits of statutory claim in lieu of 4A claim.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @steve_vladeck
@steve_vladeck@bmaz@emptywheel You think there was a gap in that analysis?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq@bmaz@emptywheel Several. First, 1861 isn't actually preclusive (see, e.g., 1810 and ability to challenge in criiminal cases).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @steve_vladeck
@steve_vladeck@bmaz@emptywheel Isn't fact that specific situations identified for challenge evidence that others were precluded?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq@bmaz@emptywheel If 1861 were express, yes. But nothing in 1861 expressly displaces other review, so why should APA be diff't?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @steve_vladeck
@steve_vladeck@bmaz@emptywheel Think the Circuit might look into legislative history a bit more on that?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@BradMossEsq At least it was a relief he didn't buy govt legislative adoption shit. @steve_vladeck @bmaz
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.