Well, it's not my view of standing - it's the Catholic Charities minority's. The five judges thought that San Franciscans didn't have standing to challenge the resolution simply on the theory that it allegedly conveyed a message of hostility to their religion, or made them feel like outsiders. That strikes me as quite hard to distinguish from the message-of-hostility claim in the Oklahoma litigation; likewise, that Oklahoma claim strikes me as hard to support under any of the circuit cases on standing in such cases, other than the Catholic Charities majority.
Now it's true that the Catholic Charities minority thought that "the parties who are personally the subjects of the resolution, such as Cardinal Levada, Archbishop Niederauer, and Catholic Charities, could demonstrate cognizable harm," presumably because there was something "particularized" as to them in the resolution. Maybe the minority was mistaken on this - maybe under the logic of the opinion, the result should be the same as to both rank-and-file Catholics and the Cardinal, Archbishop, and Catholic Charities. But given the minority's distinction, it seems to me that rank-and-file Muslims in Oklahoma are much closer to rank-and-file Catholics in San Francisco than to the people and organization specifically named in the San Francisco resolution. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marc Stern Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:26 PM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: TRO against Oklahoma "no use of Sharia Law" But the resolution was non-binding and unenforceable; how then, on your view of standing are they harmed? Marc D. Stern Associate General Counsel for Legal Advocacy ste...@ajc.org 212.891.1480 646.287.2606 (cell)
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.