Court Opinion

ID: 9435663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 00:13:59.792333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:05.789599
License: Public Domain

CLIFTON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
I share the substantive conclusion of the majority. I disagree only in that I would not express that conclusion in terms of standing and jurisdiction. In practical terms, I view this as a disposition on the merits. The district court granted summary judgment, and I would simply affirm that summary judgment based on reasoning essentially similar to that laid out in the memorandum disposition. Neither the district court nor the parties talked about standing, and I do not think we need to, either.
Plaintiffs here are surely “aggrieved parties.” Their problem is that they do not have a valid cause of action against these defendants. To say that as a result they lack standing amounts to holding that a court lacks jurisdiction because a plaintiff does not have a meritorious claim. I acknowledge that the terms “standing” and “jurisdiction” are often used to express conclusions that are at root more substantive, but I fear that continuing down that path will result in those terms entirely losing their more unique and useful meanings.