https://drive.google.com/file/d/18dE7Q7pZuFg9kEb4E1s0LQF3HpnY3-m8/view?usp=sharing
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
THE HONORABLE LOUIE GOHMERT, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
THE HONORABLE MICHAEL R. PENCE, in his official capacity as Vice President of the United States, Defendant.
Case No. 6:20-cv-660-JDK
January 1, 2021
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This case challenges the constitutionality of the Electoral Count Act of 1887, as codified at 3 U.S.C. §§ 5, 15. The Court cannot address that question, however, without ensuring that it has jurisdiction. See, e.g., U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2; Cary v. Curtis, 44 U.S. 236, 245 (1845). One crucial component of jurisdiction is that the plaintiffs have standing. This requires the plaintiffs to show a personal injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and is likely to be redressed by the requested relief. See, e.g., U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2; Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). Requiring plaintiffs to make this showing helps enforce the limited role of federal courts in our constitutional system.
The problem for Plaintiffs here is that they lack standing. Plaintiff Louie Gohmert, the United States Representative for Texas’s First Congressional District, alleges at most an institutional injury to the House of Representatives. Under wellsettled Supreme Court authority, that is insufficient to support standing. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 829 (1997).
The other Plaintiffs, the slate of Republican Presidential Electors for the State of Arizona (the “Nominee-Electors”), allege an injury that is not fairly traceable to the Defendant, the Vice President of the United States, and is unlikely to be redressed by the requested relief.
Accordingly, as explained below, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and must dismiss the action.
No comments:
Post a Comment