General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTo those with experience in federal litigation: would an ordinary US citizen have standing to
pursue a Writ of Mandamus directed to the DNI regarding his refusal to deliver the "credible, urgent" whistle blower complaint to Congress? The statute says that he "shall" deliver it. Is that not a "nondiscretionary duty?"
former9thward
(31,805 posts)Only the Speaker or a Speaker designee would have standing.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Probably not. The appropriate party, as former9thward noted above, is Congress since they are the direct beneficiary of the pertinent portion of the Whistleblower statute. Although Congress represents the citizens, an individual citizen's interest is too far removed for them to claim standing.
Standing has traditionally required that a plaintiff seeking relief have "such
a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete
adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends .... ", Courts have historically found little difficulty with plaintiffs who assert a direct economic or personal injury.' However, if the plaintiff seeks to redress a personal stake of another nature the standing doctrine then becomes an amorphous concept.' An ideological plaintiff who seeks neither damages for wrongs to his personal interests nor injunctive relief for personal benefit, but who instead seeks an order compelling administrative action, is
certain to confront the standing barrier. https://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/24c1be43-1c6a-49f2-899f-d03fac60cd30.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjLuIGZgujkAhVQqJ4KHQaACVsQFjALegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1eDWBFYwbTi74VFBqff6NE
doc03
(35,148 posts)supply the Congress with Trump's tax returns. It didn't happen. I have been hearing for months that the state of New York would get his tax returns. So with this president shall means unless he doesn't want to.