Will Baude

And they said, our interest is we have an interest in a fair, lawful administrative process where the agency complies with the law.

And Justice Scalia said, well, you don't have an interest in just making sure the government complies with the law.

You only have an interest in making sure the government complies with the law if you had plans to go see some tigers and now the tigers are going to be dead because of the regs.

And it seems like Justice Scalia might have said this in the congressman post.

Like, do you have an interest in making sure that they don't give your opponent a bunch of fraudulent ballots?

Like, not if the tiger's not going to die.

Maybe.

So we might say public perceptions about the legitimacy of elections or about the vote totals in elections matter in a way that public perceptions about whether agencies have complied with the law don't matter.

So the cynic might now say, ah, Professor Bode and Professor Epps, the real rule is that if you are a Republican—

about pro-Democrat policies adopted by blue states or a white person complaining about affirmative action, you're standing.

But if you are an environmental law group or a consumer complaining that big corporations or agencies did conservative things, you don't have standing.

I don't believe that, but you might ask that.

The realignment seems to be going on.

When we started teaching law not that long ago,

If you were told there was a contested 5-4 standing case, you pretty much knew the liberals were in favor of standing, the conservatives were against standing, and somebody complicated was in the middle.

And even TransUnion is close to the last case where that's true.

Not even TransUnion, just as Thomas is on the other side.

Yeah.

But the point of the Richard Ray article is like, we really just don't have cases like that anymore.

The contested cases are all where the liberals think there's no standing.