So in the case of SCOTUS, that would be... the DOJ? Or would it be Congress? Both of those guys have bigger fish to fry. So provided it wasn't completely obvious, the likelyhood of repercussions would be extremely low. Which to me bolsters the idea that it is probably a fairly common event.
That isn't a very high bar to meet. If a campaign donor was restricted from donating $1001 for example, I imagine that would meet standing. Though secretly the donar might prefer that he/she not be able to lawfully make that donation. And the genuineness of the litigation is inherently...
That may apply to the parties, but not to the litigator right? The lawyers isn't obliged to have skin in the game.
If it is unlawful, who would bring the charges? And on what grounds?
I am operating on the assumptions:
1. Statutory law is often obtusely written
2. Markets can be effected by specific legal interpretations
3. Lack of clear statute or precedent may create market uncertainty that diverse parties by desire to rectify.
An example might be the current case...