The big hole in the Trump administration's argument about standing

[Xipe Totec]

Is the claim that the AGs have no standing because the injured parties are non citizens.

The fact of the matter is that visa applications, particularly for resident visas, are made not by the recipients of the visas, but by US citizen relatives on their behalf. So the injured parties are American citizens whose due process rights are violated when their relatives are denied entry to the US, after going through the vetting process, simply on the basis of religion and nationality.

Entry visas, other than tourist visas into the United States, in general require a sponsor who is a United States Citizen.

That citizen is the injured party with standing in the courts, represented by the Attorneys Generals of their respective states.

[unblock]

1. listen to the talking heads

stop. making. sense.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. The AGs have established standing by alleging injury to their states.

That injury is in the form of damage to their economies by the losses suffered to their universities and businesses by the exclusion of valuable immigrant employees.

[Xipe Totec]

3. That has been used before and declared nebulous and hard to quantify

Meanwhile real residents with real injuries have been ignored.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Well, the federal judge seems to have bought it.

But the state attorneys general represent states, not individuals, so they have to establish that their clients, the states, have standing. It's not a matter of ignoring individuals who have been harmed, it's that the AGs have to show evidence of legal standing.

[Ms. Toad]

7. The federal judge bought it sufficiently to maintain the status quo

for a further hearing. That's it. No guarantee that even that same judge will ultimately find the AGs have standing.

[Ms. Toad]

5. The established enough of an argument to obtain a TRO.

That doesn't mean it is the final word on standing - just that they made a significant enough argument to convince the judge that he needed to preserve the status quo until a more significant review can be had.

[Xipe Totec]

6. Understood. Agree. However, the pushback from the Feds is that there is no standing

And they base that on precedent established in previous executive order challenges by state AGs.

Where economic impact to the state was considered speculative.

That's the argument that will play out at the 9th circuit court.

[Ms. Toad]

9. The economic impact to the states, at least to Washington, is not speculative.

Lost Income to the state schools from students granted visas, but denied as a result of the order
Lost funding to the Universities associated with faculty kept out of the country
Lost money expended to obtain visas for state employees

The Feds had NO answer to those very specific, non-speculative losses ot the state-as-proprietor of its schools - despite repeated questioning. The best they could offer was, we disagree with the precedential case that held that some miniscule loss (~$12, if I recall correctly) established standing.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. This is their argument:

The amicus brief co-authored by the 16 attorneys general argues that states have the legal standing to challenge the immigration order because the policy inflicts harm on the states.

They said barring students, tourists and business visitors from entering the country will lead to diminished tax revenues; impact medical institutions ability to provide care; disrupt educational institutions; and violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another.

They also said that lifting the restraining order would thrust the country back into chaos, similar to the mass confusion that erupted at airports after Trump first signed the executive order.

“State Attorneys General are on the front lines of protecting our people from dangerous and hastily-implemented federal policy. I’ve been clear: President Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional, unlawful, and fundamentally un-American — and we won’t stand by while it undermines our states’ families, economies, and institutions,” said New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman (D).

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/318144-over-a-dozen-attorneys-general-support-lawsuit-against-trump-ban

Established law governing standing includes situations where the party requesting relief is not directly harmed by the conditions under consideration, but asks for it because the harm is reasonably related to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm is likely affect others who might not be in a position to ask a court for relief. That's certainly the situation for the plaintiff states.