Con/Prudential Limits:Mootness/Ripeness/AO/Standing Flashcards Preview

Con Law Fordham > Con/Prudential Limits:Mootness/Ripeness/AO/Standing > Flashcards

Flashcards in Con/Prudential Limits:Mootness/Ripeness/AO/Standing Deck (17):

United States v. Windsor (2013)


Rule of Law

(1) A reviewing court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal even if the appellant is not seeking redress from an adverse judgment, provided the party retains a sufficient stake in the case to satisfy Article III of the Constitution.

(2) A federal statute excluding same-sex couples from the definition of marriage for purposes of federal benefits is unconstitutional.

Being forced to pay an unconstitutional tax is a redressable injury sufficient to confer standing.


Lujan v. National Wildlife Foundation (1992) (Supp more than book)

Under Article III of the Constitution, a party does not have standing to litigate a generalized grievance against the government in federal court if she suffered no personal injury other than the harm suffered by all citizens.


Constitutional Elements(or limits) of standing

1. Injury in fact
-Injury must be actual or imminent (But Mass v. EPA)
-Litigants must have a personalized stake
-Injury must be concrete and particularized as to the litigant

2. Causation

3. Redressibility


Prudential Limits on Standing

1. No third party standing
-- Where third parties cannot vindicate their own rts (Zivotofsky v. Clinton)
--Where there is sufficient identity of interests (Craig v. Boren)

2. No generalized grievances

3. Zone of interests


Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)

Standing in the context of a Quasi-Sovereign. Mass has be losing land owned by the state as a result of global warming via rising water levels.

**However, political influence can muddy the public policy of allowing states to sue.**


US v. SCRAP(1973)

Possibly the most lax interpretation of standing. (High water mark).
The court based an environmental group's standing to challenge a railroad freight surcharge on the groups allegation that increases in railroad rates would cause an increase in the use of non-recyclable goods, resulting in the increased need for natural resources to produce such goods. According to the group, some of these resources might be taken from the Washington Area, resulting in increased refuse that might find its way into area parks, harming group members.


Clapper v. Amnesty Internation USA(2013)

**Imminency Requirement**
Group of lawyers domestic advocacy groups int business people anticipated that their conversations w/ international clients would be targeted by gov't surv.

No standing b/c highly speculative
"This theory of standing, which relies on a highly attenuated chain of possibilities, does not satisfy the requirement that threatened injury must be certainly impending."

2nd argument w/r/t P' burden to take steps to secure comms fails as well b/c
"cannot manufacture standing merelt by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.

Breyers Dissent
It is likely and possible. Fed courts often entertain actions for injunctions or declaratory relief based on likely future happenings. Reasonably likely standard.


Allen v. Wright (1984)

IRS has duty to deny tax exempt status to schools that are racially discriminatory or unbalanced private schools in their district. By providing these private schools, it made the task of desegregating the public schools more difficult.

basically it is too speculative whether withdrawal of a tax exemption from any particular school would lead the school to change its policies.


Raines v. Byrd(1997)

Legislator Standing
*Line Item Veto of 1996*
Political question, but also no standing because alleged injury that their votes will be less 'effective' than before is abstract and widely dispersed.


Bond v. United States(2011)

Federalism and Standing "do prudential limits on standing preclude standing for an individual indicted under a federal statute to challenge the indictment as exceeding Congress's powers by intruding upon the reserved autonomy of the States?

Kennedy - Woman had standing after being indicted under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 for placing chemicals on the mailbox of her husband's pregnant lover on federalism grounds even though no State was a part to the federal proceedings.

GINSBURG CONCUR "Bond has a personal right not to be convicted under a constitutionally invalid law"


Hollingsworth v. Perry 2013

Cal Prop 8 not legal sam sex marriage.

Generalized grievance b/c they were not Governor or Attorney Gen so no real injury...


State of Washington v. Trump (2017)

School had standing b/c of travel ban b/c limited research etc. State have 3rd party standing for schools.


Mootness Exceptions

Roe v. Wade - Capable of repetition, yet evading review.

Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (2000) - Voluntary Cessation (kinda same concept, could happen again in the future.)


Mootness Requirement

an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review


Ripeness Requirement

the ripeness doctrine seeks to separate matters that are premature for review, because the injury is speculative and never may occur, from those cases that are appropriate for federal court action


Sierra Club v. Morton

Never went to the valley they were seeking to protect


Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) Scalia

imminency not met b/c only vague plans to visit abroad locals, so doesn't satisfy the injury req.

Their theories regarding an ecosystem, animal, or vocational nexus justifying standing for individuals who want to study, see, or work with such animals are too speculative.