There will be many things written about the Hobby Lobby decision released yesterday. I only want to write this morning about one non-religious, non-regulatory issue which that decision unknowingly raises. I have doubts whether this aspect of the ruling can be limited.
The concept of standing in the Hobby Lobby may not be susceptible to limitations, or at least the limitations written into the opinion. Conceptual standing in the Hobby Lobby means for one thing that standing does not require proof, and it means something more.
Standing to assert an actual controversy now means only that the plaintiffs say that they are adversely affected or, in the Hobby Lobby, only that the plaintiffs say that they hold a sincere religious belief. No proof is required.
As any practicing lawyer knows, allegations are not proof, and no judgment has ever been validated by the nonexistence of any evidence to support it.
I have doubts that this "I say it, therefore it is true" concept of standing will stay in the Hobby Lobby.
© 2014 by Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved. No claim to original U.S. Government works.
Please Read The Disclaimer.