Court Opinion

ID: 9501860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 19:49:07.908824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:51.187625
License: Public Domain

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I join the majority opinion. I write separately only to note that we erred in the previous opinion (by which we are now bound) addressing standing. The plaintiffs allege absolutely no cognizable harm to themselves. They simply have a preference. The plaintiffs’ views about the Boy Scouts’ institutional positions do not establish standing, because no concrete harm flows to plaintiffs as a result of the Boy Scouts’ views. My views on standing were set forth in my dissent in Barnes-Wallace v. City of San Diego, 530 F.3d 776, 794 (9th Cir.2008) (Kleinfeld, J., dissenting). Revulsion for a group so intense that one cannot bear to be on property they manage cannot, in a tolerant society, be deemed harm sufficiently concrete as to confer standing to sue.