Court Opinion

ID: 9478044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:38:46.611666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:12.559502
License: Public Domain

BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judge,
concurring specially.
Although I concur in the result, I write separately to express my disagreement with the majority’s analysis of Hoke’s claim that the Tennessee Valley Authority violated Hoke’s employees’ first amendment right to freedom of association. I have two problems with the majority’s handling of the issue.
First, I do not believe that the interests of Hoke’s non-unionized employees are sufficiently similar to the company’s interests so as to justify departing from the general rule that a party may not rest its claim for relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties. For the reasons expressed in the district court’s opinion, 661 F.Supp. 740, 748-50, I would hold that Hoke does not have the standing to claim that the Tennessee Valley Authority’s actions vio*830lated Hoke’s employees’ constitutional rights.
I also am troubled by the majority’s willingness to skirt this jurisdictional issue and reach the substantive merits of Hoke’s claim. Such an approach runs directly counter to fundamental jurisprudential principles. I, therefore, concur in the judgment only.