in Re jernagin/barnes/mason/bright Minors

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that one house of a state’s bicameral legislature that was not otherwise authorized to litigate on behalf of the state lacked standing to defend the constitutionality of state legislation
• observing that the House has an \institutional interest in the manner in which it goes about its business\
• holding that Article III standing must be addressed before the merits
• noting that the jurisdictional requirements of Article 12 III standing “cannot be waived or forfeited”
• instructing that “when standing is questioned by . . . an opposing party, the litigant invoking the court’s jurisdiction” must explain why she has standing
• suggesting that legislature participating in litigation only to defend state statute does not “invok[e] a court’s 19 jurisdiction” and therefore need not demonstrate standing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).