“Standing” is a legal concept that defines who has the right to bring lawsuits or file appeals. In simple terms, an individual or business has standing to sue if they are individuals or businesses intended to be protected by the statute/law and there has been a “concrete injury” – actual or potential. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (US Supreme Court 2016). More specifically, standing exists where these circumstances are found:
A litigant has a special injury, right or substantial interestThat injury, right or interest will be detrimentally affected if they are unable to bring or be involved in the relevant litigation or file an appealThe potential detriment that might be suffered is different from the detriment that might be suffered by the citizenry at large
Standing can also be conferred by statute.
With respect to a petition or application to restore firearm rights, generally, standing to oppose such a petition/application is granted by the relevant statute. But victims of the relevant crime(s) will generally have standing based on general legal principles. But, as noted, many statutes give victims that right and also give state prosecutors standing to oppose an effort to restore firearm rights.
A recent case from Michigan gives us a good example. See In re Knight, 963 N.W.2d 676 (Mich. Court of Appeals 2020). In Knight, a convicted felon – Gregg Knight – filed a petition with his local county court – Jackson County – seeking to restore his firearm rights. Pursuant to the Michigan firearm rights restoration laws, the Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney appeared in the case and opposed the petition. The Prosecuting Attorney argued that Knight was not eligible to have his firearm rights restored because Knight had violated his probation, failed to pay restitution while on parole and failed to pay court-ordered restitution and attorney fees. The county court disagreed and granted Knight’s petition to restore his firearm rights in November 2018.
Thereafter, the Prosecuting Attorney appealed and sought to overturn the court’s granting of Knight’s petition. Knight argued that the Prosecuting Attorney lacked standing to appeal the case.
Unfortunately for Knight, the Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed. Knight made three legal arguments:
The Michigan firearm restoration statute did not give the Prosecuting Attorney specific authority to appealThe Prosecuting Attorney was not an “interested party” as defined under Michigan law andThe Prosecuting Attorney did not have standing to appeal under general concepts of standing – that is, the Prosecuting Attorney was not “aggrieved” or injured in any way
The Court of Appeals agreed with respect to the first and third arguments, but disagreed with respect to the second. The court held that the Prosecuting Attorney was an “interested party” via general Michigan statutes concerning the role of state prosecutors in maintaining criminal justice and enforcing criminal laws in the State.
As such, the Court of Appeals agreed that the Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney had standing to bring the appeal. From there, the Court of Appeals went on to consider the merits of the appeal. And, unfortunately, the Court of Appeals overturned the trial court. Knight was held to be ineligible to have his firearm rights restored because he failed to pay his restitution.
