“Standing” Keeps Courts in Their Proper Lane
Litigants must have a cognizable stake in the subject matter of the lawsuit to prevent meddling in lawmaking
Louisiana v. Callais has gotten a great deal of attention. In another favorable decision issued last week, the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Nashville reversed an injunction by a notorious activist Democrat Chancery Court Judge in Davidson County, Judge Patricia Head Moskal, who had enjoined Gov. Bill Lee’s deployment of Tennessee National Guard troops in support of the President’s Memphis Safe Task Force. The case was entitled Harris v. Lee. The plaintiffs were various Democratic officials, including the Mayor of Shelby County (Lee Harris), two members of the Shelby County Commission, a member of the Memphis City Council, two members of the Tennessee House of Representatives, and one member of the Tennessee Senate (Jeff Yarbro). The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit, and dismissed it on that ground. Judge Andy D. Bennett wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by Judges Frank G. Clement and Jeffrey Usman. The Court of Appeals was absolutely correct.
The decision was noteworthy enough to get the attention of the U.S. Department of Justice. As reported by the award-winning Tennessee Star, “Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche praised Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti after the Tennessee Court of Appeals handed down a ruling clearing the way for the continued deployment of the National Guard assisting with efforts under the Memphis Safe Task Force.” Blanche called the ruling “outstanding victory.” General Skrmetti called the ruling a “big win for Memphis and a big win for Tennessee….The Governor’s activation of the National Guard has provided critical support for the lifesaving work of the Memphis Safe Task Force. This significant Court of Appeals opinion recognizes that an elected official who disagrees with this effort does not have the right to veto the Governor by filing a lawsuit. When elected officials disagree about policy, we resolve that at the ballot box, not the courts,” Skrmetti added. This is textbook civics.
As the Tennessee Star reported,
The decision effectively nullifies an earlier order from Tennessee Chancery Court Judge Patricia Head Moskal of Davidson County, who had granted a temporary injunction in November 2025. Moskal had concluded that the plaintiffs had standing and were likely to succeed on key claims, temporarily blocking deployment.
By ruling that the plaintiffs lack standing altogether, the court of appeals renders that injunction legally ineffective and removes the basis for any court-ordered halt to the National Guard’s involvement.
The ruling follows earlier federal support for the state’s position. In January, U.S. Attorney Mike Dunavant joined the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in filing an amicus brief backing Tennessee’s appeal, emphasizing the National Guard’s role in supporting law enforcement efforts under the federally backed Memphis Safe Task Force.
Among those who celebrated Tuesday’s ruling are State Senator Brent Taylor (R-Memphis), who hailed the court’s ruling as a victory for public safety efforts and criticized the county mayor for filing the suit.
What is “standing,” and why is it important? Remember the lawsuit seeking to enjoin President Trump’s construction of a new, secure ballroom in the east wing of the White House? The basis for bringing the lawsuit was that an elderly Democrat busybody affiliated with an NGO sometimes walks by the White House and doesn’t care to look at the new ballroom under construction. It offends her subjective sense of aesthetics. She claimed that her subjective displeasure “impaired” her “interests,” as if she has a legal right that overrides the authority of the President of the United States.
Her lawsuit should have been promptly dismissed on “standing” grounds. She has no cognizable legal interest in the subject of the lawsuit. She is being a “Karen,” in effect using a lawsuit (filed by activist lawyers) to say “Can I speak to the manager?”–except her audience is instead a left-wing judge inclined to interfere in Executive Branch decision-making that is none of the court’s business.
In a pluralistic society of 330 million people, “standing” is what prevents busybodies and activists from clogging the courts with lawsuits that simply express disagreement with government policies or actions they find uncongenial. We have elections, legislatures, and grassroots input to influence government policies and actions; the courts are not designed to serve as ad hoc referenda brought by disgruntled citizens.
So the Court of Appeals held in Harris v. Lee. The Court stated that
Standing is a threshold inquiry that determines “‘whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims asserted.’”
The three-part standing test for public rights claims “requires plaintiffs to show (1) an injury in fact (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and (3) is capable of being redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id.at *18. “[A] plaintiff must show an injury that is ‘distinct and palpable.’” Id. (quoting City of Memphis, 414 S.W.3d at 98 (quoting ACLU of Tenn. v. Darnell, 195 S.W.3d 612, 620 (Tenn. 2006))). The injury also must be “actual or imminent.” Wilmington Tr., 703 S.W.3d at 283 (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)).
The Court found that individual legislators are not acting in a legislative capacity; “individual members lack standing to assert the institutional interests of a legislature.” For an individual legislator who has not been authorized by the legislature to act on its behalf to have standing, the injury must be an injury to the legislator himself or herself rather than an injury to the institution of the legislature. Legislators have no special right to standing simply by virtue of their status: like other plaintiffs, legislators must establish a distinct, concrete injury in fact.
The Court held:
Under the legislative plaintiffs’ approach, any single legislator who alleges the governor exceeded his or her authority under a statute or the constitution, even if no one was injured by the governor’s actions, could bring suit based on not being able to vote regarding the governor’s action. This would place the judiciary in the role of reviewing the legality of the governor’s conduct as to anything to which a single legislator objects even if there is no injury. That is not the proper role of courts. The legislative plaintiffs’ approach to standing also runs contrary to the basic functioning of a legislative body. By accepting the legislative plaintiffs’ standing argument, this court would empower a minority of a legislative body to assume the mantle of the legislative body itself. The courts, not their colleagues, would be conferring the power to decide the position of the legislature and to act on behalf of the legislature, without any actual authorization by the legislative body to do so. In other words, the plaintiffs’ approach to standing invites us to intrude upon both the executive and legislative branches.
Much of what Mayor Harris asserts as injuries giving rise to his standing in the present case, however, are injuries not to him or his office but instead purported injuries to Shelby County. For example, he notes financial strains upon the County budget stemming from the National Guard’s presence. Mayor Harris is not the County itself, and he does not assert that the Shelby County Charter confers upon him the authority to file lawsuits on behalf of Shelby County.
For a public rights action, the injury must be “an injury in fact.” Id. Injuries in fact are “distinct and palpable,” either suffered already or imminent, and cannot be “conjectural hypothetical, or based on an interest shared by the general public.” Wygant, 2025 WL 3537313, at *18. Injuries in fact are concrete and not too abstract.
Taxpayer standing was not a viable theory, even the Nashville Chancellor concluded, because no state funds were being expended.
This whole episode illustrates the folly of T.C.A. 1-3-121, which was—fortunately—repealed by SB1958. In our system of government, policy is made by the legislative and executive branches. Courts are not arbiters of the wisdom of decisions made by the other branches. That is why we have elections.
So-called conservatives who opposed SB1958 support liberal judicial activism that undermines the GOP majority in the General Assembly. That is an asinine position.
