This article headline is misleading. The AZSC did not deny her because of standing. It merely ruled, without prejudice, that the appeals court had already scheduled a hearing, and therefore, it would not hear the case. Lake appealed both at the same time. If the appeals court rules against her, then she can re-appeal to the AZSC.
Yes. The "without prejudice" part is important. And I think it's good that there's a delay, more facts keep turning up. Not that there is much hope from the appeals court.
This article headline is misleading. The AZSC did not deny her because of standing. It merely ruled, without prejudice, that the appeals court had already scheduled a hearing, and therefore, it would not hear the case. Lake appealed both at the same time. If the appeals court rules against her, then she can re-appeal to the AZSC.
Yes. The "without prejudice" part is important. And I think it's good that there's a delay, more facts keep turning up. Not that there is much hope from the appeals court.