In Ex Parte Levitt, the Supreme Court denied standing to a pro se litigant making esoteric claims against the appointment of Justice Hugo Black. The Court’s short opinion is now an unremarkable mainstay of modern federal courts doctrine. But the case merits closer examination. Indeed, Levitt’s challenge was probably meritorious, and Hugo Black’s appointment unconstitutional. Moreover, the Court’s standing analysis was probably wrong – though there might have been other reasons to deny the challenge. And finally, the case’s aftermath raises intriguing questions about the Supreme Court’s role in politics and constitutional law.
Sunday, March 24, 2019
Baude on a Challenge to Justice Hugo Black's Appointment
William Baude, University of Chicago Law School, has posted Ex parte Levitt, which is forthcoming in the Texas Law Review 98 (2019):