Court Opinion

ID: 9835721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 02:37:25.211412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:07.637624
License: Public Domain

LYNCH, Circuit Judge,
(concurring).
All three judges agree that the plaintiffs have not established a constitutionally protected property interest, and that we should affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
All three judges also agree that the question of standing has both a constitutional Article III component and a prudential component, and that we may address the two components in any order. See Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007).
My two colleagues have different views as to whether the plaintiffs’ payment of electric bills claimed to be inflated is an injury sufficient to give them standing. The parties have npt briefed questions of standing, and the issues are in my view quite difficult.
So, for the sake of resolving this case, I join Judge Torruella’s opinion without any intimation that I necessarily disagree with Judge Howard’s analysis.