Summary

Portrait of Sonia Sotomayor Sonia Sotomayor Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v… (2002)

Our approach not only comports with the language of the Steel Co. majority opinion, but also advances the underlying rationale of Steel Co. and makes good sense as a constitutional matter. The concern of the Steel Co. majority was that deciding a case on the mere assumption of jurisdiction can lead to the rendering of advisory opinions in violation of Article III: "Hypothetical jurisdiction produces nothing more than a hypothetical judgment--which comes to the same thing as an advisory opinion, disapproved by this Court from the beginning."
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Sonia Sotomayor Sonia Sotomayor Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v… (2002)

It is not clear, however, that the district court's reliance on Planned Parenthood is entirely justified in this context. We found in Planned Parenthood that the alleged harm suffered by domestic NGOs is attributable to independent decisions of foreign NGOs, but only for purposes of the merits of plaintiffs' First Amendment claims. It does not necessarily follow that Planned Parenthood answers the question of causation with respect to constitutional standing.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature