standing requires a showing of direct harm. The court also said it didn't have subject matter jurisdiction because certain administrative procedures must be followed before going to court. He did not rule on the merits of the claim.
The plaintiffs here are not directly impacted by the directive. Instead, they allege that the directive subjects them to upstream effects including a diversion of resources to answer members’ questions about the directive, a potential loss of membership, and possible reputational harm. The unions do not have the required direct stake in the Fork Directive, but are challenging a policy that affects others, specifically executive branch employees. This is not sufficient. Just as the Court found that the plaintiffs in Hippocratic Medicine could not spend their way into standing, neither can the plaintiffs in this case establish standing by choosing to divert resources towards“respond[ing] to tremendous uncertainty created by OPM’s actions” and away from other union priorities. (Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of TRO 17.) Moreover, a loss of membership dues to the unions is not certain before the September 30th deadline.
Second, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs’ pleaded claims. Congress intended for the FSL-MRS and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978(“CSRA”), of which the FSL-MRS is a part, to provide the exclusive procedures for disputes involving employees and their federal employers and disputes between unions representing federal employees and the federal government. According to this complex scheme, disputes must first be administratively exhausted before the employing agency and the relevant administrative review board.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25523906-otooleord021225/
We can't be like Trump and accuse a judge of being biased or illegitimate or the decision being "illegal" just because we don't like the outcome. Also the case isn't over.
= new reply since forum marked as read