Standing Flashcards
(29 cards)
Advisory Opinions Rule:
1) Constitution gives the federal courts jurisdiction over “cases and controversies.” Federal courts cannot issue an opinion when no party is before the court who has suffered or will suffer an injury.
Standing (Elements)
(1) personal, actual, or imminent injury in fact
(2) caused by or fairly traceable to the defendant’s action complained of, which is
(3) redressable by the courts.
“injury in fact”
an invasion of a legally- protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, 1 (b) “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’
Causation
the injury has to be “fairly [traceable] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not [the] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.”
Standing: (Other “Prudential” Requirements)
- Rule against 3rd Parties bringing claims (Plaintiff must assert his own legal rights and interests)
- Court generally does not decide:
- abstract questions of wide public significance” which amount to “generalized grievances,”
(Better addressed by the representative branch of Government)
- abstract questions of wide public significance” which amount to “generalized grievances,”
Citizen / Taxpayer suits
INDIVIDUALS as CITIZENS alleging no specific violation of a constitutional right, but claiming a general interest as taxpayers or citizens have no standing.
-An person only has standing when they can show an “individualized” injury.
Justiciable Cases (generally):
1) cannot involve, or request, an advisory opinion.
2) Plaintiff must have Standing.
3) The Case cannot be Moot.
4) The Case must be Ripe for decision.
5) The case cannot involve Political Questions.
Limits on congressional creation of Standing
- Congress cannot create federal court jurisdiction over suits by people who lack the constitutional requirements for STANDING.
(In Lujan v. defenders of Wildlife, the Court struck down the “citizen- suit” provision of the Endangered Species Act, which attempted to endow “any person” with the power to bring suit to enjoin anybody from violating the Act.)
Congressional Power to “define Injuries and articulate Chains of Causation.”
Congress has the power to define injuries and articulate chains of causation that will give rise to a case or controversy where none existed [before]. In exercising this power, however, Congress must at the very least identify the injury it seeks to vindicate and relate the injury to the class of persons entitled to bring suit.
State Standing
Must assert STATE INTERESTS (interests that affect the whole state, not individual state citizens)
Note: Injury / Causation test (maybe) a little easier for State suits against private parties or federal gov.
“Taxpayer Standing.” “Flast Exception”
Taxpayers generally have no standing to challenge government expenditures because they have suffered no individualized injury.
Extremely Limited:
- Congressional Spending that violates the Establishment Clause, not even Executive Spending that violates the clause. (Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation) (Expenditure was at the discretion of the executive)
State Taxpayers
No federal court standing
Daimler Chrysler Corp. V. Cuno
Municipal Taxpayer Standing
Do have standing.
Citizen Suits
Plaintiff argues he has a right to have his government act in accordance with the constitution.
- No Standing, because one’s interest is no different from the interest of ALL CITIZENS.
- Not shown individualized injury in fact.
Third Party Standing
- person may not assert the constitutional rights of someone not before the court.
Exceptions: - where individuals can represent the interests of parties who are unlikely to be able to represent their own interests.
- Close Relationship Between Plaintiff and Third Party
- doctor patient
- business - consumer
- “where the claim is that a statute is overly broad in violation of the First Amendment,
ii.The “Zone of Interests” Requirement
A “plaintiff’s complaint [must] fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.”
(statutory challenges)
a person or group can claim to be within the zone of interests protected by law only if the statute’s text or history justifies such a conclusion.
Ripeness
To be ripe for decision, a plaintiff must (1) have already suffered harm; (2) be faced with a “specific present objective harm”; or (3) be under a “threat of specific future harm.”
Mootness
“the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).”
Capable of Repetition, Yet evading review (exception)
Capable of repetition, yet evading review.”
Requires a showing that:
(1) the life of the controversy is too short to be fully litigated prior to its termination;
and
(2) that there is a reasonable expectation that the plaintiff (or a similarly situated plaintiff part of the class) will again be subjected to the same problem.
Political Question Doctrine
- Justiciability Doctrine where the Court declines to hear a case on political grounds if “Separation of Powers” requires it, or
there are persuasive public policy reasons to leave a decision up to the political branches.
Political Question Areas (3 types)
1) where there is a constitutional basis for determining the issue should be decided by another branch of gov.
2) where there are no judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving an issue.”
3) where the judiciary’s intervention would create serious institutional problems.
E.g. Republican form of government:
Luther v. Borden, (holding that the Guaranty Clause is not a repository of judicially manageable standards which a court could utilize independently in order to identify a State’s lawful government.)
- no criteria by which a court could determine whether a government was “republican.”
Baker v. Carr (justiciability)
if a governmental electoral scheme does not follow a “one person, one vote” principle, it violates the Equal protection clause = justiciable, non-political question.
Rule: Just because a suit seeks the protection of a political right does not make it a political question.
Nixon v. United States
Former Federal Judge files suit claiming Senate acted unconstitutionally by delegating his Trial to a committee.
NON-JUSTICIABLE: there was a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of th issue to another branch of government (SENATE). And lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards.
Article 1, section 3, Clause 6 provides:
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.”
- language suggests no limitations
- Judicial review would be inconsistent with the framer’s creation of impeachment as the only chcek on the judical branch by the legislature.
- Judicial review could expose the country’s political life to periods of chaos.
