Will Baude

But they are standing hawks, other than Justice Thomas.

So they think that, like, even if a company, like, maintains false credit reports about you in violation of federal law and you sue saying you have an interest in having true information maintained about you that complies with federal law, they think you don't necessarily have standing until you can search something else, like that the data has been communicated to third parties, a requirement not in the statute.

So I don't know why they suddenly have a more indulgent approach to standing here.

This does seem different though, right?

Why?

So I would say here his interest is in making sure that the law is complied with in this process.

Just like the failed plaintiffs in TransUnion had an interest in making sure the law was applied to their credit reports.

And just like the failed plaintiffs in Lujan wanted the law to be applied to them.

Well, I think the fair process thing was part of the... The complaint was TransUnion does not have a fair process for deciding whether or not I'm a terrorist, and particularly aren't complying with various safeguards they have to comply with to decide whether I'm a terrorist.

And the court said, well, so what?

What's it to you?

So maybe... Right, maybe fair process and public process is actually like a... Yeah.

Like maybe if they count all the ballots wrongly...

but do it in secret?

I'm not sure how to, you know.

Yeah.

Or in Lujan, the challengers are people who thought the EPA had not complied with various procedural requirements for rulemaking about endangered species.

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.