Page:Gohmert v. Pence (6 20-cv-660-JDK) (2021) Order.pdf/1



Case No. 6:20-cv-660-JDK

This case challenges the constitutionality of the Electoral Count Act of 1887, as codified at 3 U.S.C. §§ 5, 15. The Court cannot address that question, however, without ensuring that it has jurisdiction. See, e.g., art. III, § 2; Cary v. Curtis, 44 U.S. 236, 245 (1845). One crucial component of jurisdiction is that the plaintiffs have standing. This requires the plaintiffs to show a personal injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and is likely to be redressed by the requested relief. See, e.g., art. III, § 2; Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). Requiring plaintiffs to make this showing helps enforce the limited role of federal courts in our constitutional system.

The problem for Plaintiffs here is that they lack standing. Plaintiff Louie Gohmert, the United States Representative for Texas’s First Congressional District, alleges at most an institutional injury to the House of Representatives. Under well-settled Supreme Court authority, that is insufficient to support standing. Raines v.