Constitution) and the Enabling Act of 1875, which granted Colorado statehood. The plaintiffs in Kerr, which was originally filed back in 2011, seek to challenge TABOR on the theory that its delegation of taxing authority to the voters denies them a “republican form of government” in violation of the Guarantee Clause (article IV, §4 of the U.S.
TABOR has sparked heated debate over the years with strong voices on both sides, and opponents have repeatedly looked to the judiciary for resolution. Adopted by Colorado voters in 1992, TABOR restricts state and local governments from levying new taxes or increasing tax rates without voter approval. 2019), considered a constitutional challenge to Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, commonly known as TABOR. Court of Appeals for Tenth Circuit recently addressed both of these doctrines in a case the court has now heard three times on issues of standing-and likely will again. Among these are the doctrines of prudential standing and political subdivision standing. Yet even if a plaintiff satisfies these criteria, other standing doctrines may still prevent a federal court from hearing his or her case.
One of the requirements to bring a claim in federal court is the establishment of Article III standing-that is, a would-be plaintiff must establish at the outset of a case that he or she has suffered (or imminently will suffer) a concrete, particularized “injury in fact” to a legally protected interest, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged action, and that a favorable judgment would likely redress the injury. Few legal doctrines confound federal courts and litigants more than those governing the issue of standing.
0 kommentar(er)
