SCOCAblog, the online publication of the California Constitution Center at Berkeley Law and of the UC Law Journal, takes a look at the standing issue in the pending Supreme Court cases of Taking Offense v. State of California and Office of the State Public Defender v. Bonta.
The substantive merits of the two cases have little in common, other than both involving high-profile constitutional issues. (Taking Offense is a free speech challenge to a statute making it unlawful for long-term care facility employees to intentionally misgender residents, and the State Public Defender writ petition attacks California’s death penalty system as racially discriminatory.) But the court has expressed concern whether the parties have standing to litigate the cases.
The SCOCAblog authors — Brandon Stracener and David Carrillo — “explain why it remains unclear whether taxpayers have standing to sue the state, and why we think they should.”
The State Public Defender writ petition is on hold pending a decision in the Taking Offense case. (See here.) Although it was argued in early May, Taking Offense might not be decided until November 10 because of recently requested supplemental briefing. (See here.)
