Wasserman v. Franklin County
Held that federal third-party standing was not compatible with Georgia’s well-settled constitutional standing rule requiring a plaintiff to assert her own rights to maintain an action; therefore, a plaintiff cannot establish constitutional standing in Georgia courts asserting only the rights of third parties not before the court. The doctrine of stare decisis was not a bar to overruling prior precedent that uncritically adopted federal doctrine of third-party standing. The Court’s precedent was an error that wrongly expanded Supreme Court’s own power to hear cases, and on constitutional grounds, third-party standing was far more susceptible to arbitrary application than Georgia’s clear and time-tested rule of constitutional standing, and no reliance interests supported preserving the doctrine, which was imported only 18 years earlier. Also held that Georgia’s constitutional standing rule is a neutral jurisdictional rule that state courts may apply evenhandedly to federal claims without violating Supremacy Clause; the standing rule is a limitation on the judicial power of Georgia courts, and it does not target or discriminate against federal rights or causes of action in any way.
Related Commentary
New State Hurdles to Standing Threaten Abortion Ban Challenges
Georgia’s Supreme Court sent a challenge to the state’s abortion ban back to the trial court to consider if the plaintiffs, including medical providers, had standing to bring the suit.