Court Opinion

ID: 9879048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 17:55:09.735297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:44.421276
License: Public Domain

Wyrick, J., concurring in the judgment: ¶ 1 I agree that we should decline to assume original jurisdiction for lack of a justiciable case, but I would decline based on the fact that Petitioner lacks standing.1 One of the requirements for standing is that the party demonstrate an “injury in fact — an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” 2 With respect to Petitioner’s challenge to H.B. 2348, Petitioner does not allege that he takes the standard deduction, nor that he plans to take the standard deduction in the future.3 Petitioner thus has no claim that he will be injured by a change in the standard deduction amount, and he accordingly lacks standing to challenge it. For this reason, I concur in the judgment only.  . See Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Matthews, 2012 OK 14, ¶ 4, 273 P.3d 43, 45-46 ("[A] plaintiff who has not suffered an injuiy attributable to the defendant lacks standing to bring a suit. And, thus, standing [must] be determined as of the commencement of suit.”) (alteration in original) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S 555, 570 n.5, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)). See generally Hendrick v. Walters, 1993 OK 162, ¶ 5 n.14, 865 P.2d 1232, 1236 n.14 ("Since our standing standards are analogous to those pronounced by the United States Supreme Court, the latter's jurisprudence is instructive.”); DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342, 126 S.Ct. 1854, 164 L.Ed.2d 589 (2006) ("Article III standing ... enforces the Constitution’s case-or-controversy requirement.”) (alteration in original) (quoting Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 159 L.Ed.2d 98 (2004)). Compare Okla. Const. art. VII, 4 ("The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall be coextensive with the State and shall extend to all cases at law and in equity....”), with U.S. Const. art. III, 2 ("The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity....”).   . Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Cities Serv. Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 1999 OK 16, ¶ 3, 976 P.2d 545, 547.   . Pet’r’s Reply Br. 2 (arguing instead that, because the law is allegedly unconstitutional, he should have standing to "protect the public as a whole from having to pay illegal taxes”).