A court rejecting a birther lawsuit isn’t news any more, but for completeness, I announce that US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected an appeal by a long list of plaintiffs, including Alan Keyes and Pamela Barnett of the US District Court in California’s dismissal of Barnett v Obama.
The Circuit Court agreed that the case should be dismissed because it doesn’t meet the constitutional requirement of standing; however, they state that their reason for arriving at this conclusion differs from that of the District Court. The difference is minor and has to do with the reasoning behind dismissal of the political candidates’ claims. While the District Court assumed that the candidate plaintiffs had standing, but since Obama had already become President before the suit was filed, their grievance could not be redressed by the courts. The Circuit Court said that those individuals were no longer candidates by the time the suit was filed. In either case, the court left the door open, and clearly open, to suits from political candidates challenging the eligibility of other candidates so long as the suits are filed before the election is over.
The 29-page opinion concluded:
The District Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims for lack of Article III standing. Moreover, the District Court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs quo warranto, FOIA or RICO claims. Accordingly, the dismissal of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Appellant’s emergency petition for writ of mandamus, filed November 8, 2011, is DENIED.
Read more on Barnett v Obama (aka Keyes v Obama):