Opinion ID: 1374657
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Virginia v. Hicks

Text: In Hicks, the United States Supreme Court confirmed that the several states have the constitutional authority to determine independently whether to allow a First Amendment overbreadth challenge to a state statute. [O]ur standing rules limit only the federal courts' jurisdiction over certain claims. State courts are not bound by the limitations of a case or controversy or other federal rules of justiciability even when they address issues of federal law. Whether Virginia's courts . . . entertain [an] overbreadth challenge is entirely a matter of state law. Hicks, 539 U.S. at 120, 123 S.Ct. 2191 (citation omitted). The Supreme Court in Hicks `makes clear that the Broadrick standing concept applies only in the federal courts because: our standing rules limit only the federal courts' jurisdiction over certain claims. 539 U.S. at 120, 123 S.Ct. 2191. While there is federal precedent to support Jaynes' claim of standing if his case were in a federal court on the issue of federal jurisdiction, it is noteworthy that the Supreme Court declined to opine on that issue in Hicks: We accordingly proceed to [the] merits inquiry, leaving for another day the question whether our ordinary rule that a litigant may not rest a claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties, see Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982), would exclude a case such as this from' initiation in federal court. After Hicks, there is no doubt that Virginia can establish the standing requirement for a litigant, like Jaynes, who brings a First Amendment overbreadth challenge. 539 U.S. at 120, 123 S.Ct. 2191. The issue then becomes what, if any, First Amendment standing requirement has been adopted in Virginia?