,
3 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
1/3 Doctrinally (though perhaps not actually), I think standing analysis in US v. Richardson would've come out differently if the Const said "Any member of the public may inspect a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money."
2/3 But saying that the Const's requirement that statements and accounts of public funds be published does not create a corresponding individual right for each member of the public to receive and review them isn't entirely persuasive. There's a proto-Hohfeldian arg to be made
3/3 Also, lots of standing rulings imposing demanding causation requirements are written completely obliviously to the type of sweeping third-party jurisdictional discovery & protected litigation to which such requirements may entitle the plaintiffs the court's trying to exclude
