Brown said:
As of this writing, the New York Times web site headline says the case was "Dismissed on Technicality." I don't like the word "technicality" in this context. The issue is a constitutional one, not some sort of trivial quibble, as "technicality" implies.
I made this remark before reading the opinion.
Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, and based it upon a little-known concept called "prudential standing," NOT on constitutional standing. A remark from ceo_esq, that the finding "suggests a cautious reluctance to make new case law when not absolutely necessary," is very close to the mark.
Basically, to show "standing" is to show that a party has the right to bring the suit. Usually, "standing" is discussed in constitutional terms. There must be a "case or controversy" under Article III of the Constitution before the Court can act: "The plaintiff must show that the conduct of which he complains has caused him to suffer an 'injury in fact' that a favorable judgment will redress."
But there is another "strand" of standing called "prudential standing": "[P]rudential standing encompasses 'the general prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiff's complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.'" It was "prudential standing" that was the decisive issue:
In our view, it is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiff's claimed standing. When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law. There is a vast difference between Newdow's right to communicate with his child--which both California law and the First Amendment recognize--and his claimed right to shield his daughter from influences to which she is exposed in school despite the terms of the custody order. We conclude that, having been deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend, Newdow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court.
A decision on the merits would have required the Court to interfere with matters of family law, which could affect not just the parties to the case but the millions of family law cases already pending in state courts. In short, the case wasn't "clean" enough for a decision on the merits.
Here's another million-dollar prediction: Look for someone to generate a "clean" case to force the issue. Some religious folks may be crowing about the opinions from Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas, but keep in mind that those folks have tipped their hands. A new challenger will be ready to tackle those points.
