From the Sixth Circuit. Plaintiffs sued the Michigan governor and AG to challenge the structure of the state Court of Claims (the court for money suits against the state, including by public emplyees). The court is staffed with judges from the state court of appeals, which also hears appeals from the court; they argued that plaintiffs are disadvantaged by court of appeals judges reviewing the work of their colleagues. (Note a similar argument was made against the old Circuit Courts in the "riding circuit" days). The court found no standing because any injuries (in a specific case or generally) are not fairly traceable to the governor or AG or redressable by a remedy against them.
The decision intersects with other areas in this class and in Civil Rights. There is some discussion of suing in individual rather than official capacities. And although the court did not take this path, it also could have resolved this on 11th Amendment grounds that the AG and Governor are not the responsible executive officers and so not proper EpY defendants. It also shows the general problem of challenging the structure of courts and court systems, from the point of standing (apart from having the wrong defendants, any future injury from the court is speculative) and other doctrines (such as abstention) that we will get into later.
What should these plaintiffs do if they believe the state judicial system violates due process?
