Case or Controversy Requirements Flashcards
Standing
Injury in fact - Injury must be concrete and particularized (Sometimes Stigma can be used) (no general grievances)
Causation - Injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action (can’t be remote) (court uses proximate cause)
Redressability - The ability of a court to offer a remedy for an injury sustained by an aggrieved party in an action
Future injury must not be speculative, must be likely that it will happen again ( Los Angeles v. Lyons)
Difficult cases often require a predictive judgment
No Standing = Case is over
Why do we care about standing?
The court wants people with a personal stake in the litigation to be litigating.
The court prefers concrete cases as opposed to abstract propositions of law.
We don’t want the federal judiciary to be a roving commission – that is, we don’t want courts to frequently intervene in the democratic process to rule on the constitutionality of federal legislation.
Political Question Doctrine
1) Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department. In other words, certain things in the Constitution are given to certain branches of government to decide. Example: impeachment – Senate, terminate treaties, mode of amending constitution
2) A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issue. (Political gerrymandering)
3) The impossibility of deciding the case without an initial policy determination by the executive or legislative branch.
4) The impossibility of a court undertaking independent resolution of the case or controversy. (separation of powers)
5) An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made.
6) The potentiality of embarrassment from conflicting decisions by various departments
Associational Standing
Must show injury in fact to either:
1) Members
Ex. Could show members use the land
2) Organization
Ex. Could show a financial loss on organization by not being able to use the land
Baker v. Carr
Courtfinds redistricting/apportionmentnottobeapolitical question
Weknow this questionends with“oneperson, onevote”inReynolds v. Sims
Courthas an EPstandard, andthis can fit withinit.
Political gerrymandering
anonjusticiablepolitical question
Thereis no manageablestandardfor thecourttoadjudicate
Bush v. Gore
Atextual commitment toanother branchof government??
12th amendment says disputes in presidential election shouldgo tothepolitical
process
Yet, no justices arguethatit’s apolitical question—WHY
Comity concerns between state/federal judiciary
Federalism concerns
Separation of power concerns
Courtsupposedtointervenewhen theprocess isn’tworking
Courtthought it was manageablebecauseit has EPstandards
Why no advisory opinions?
Separation of powers—might beaproblem if courtstrikes down legislationbeforeits issues.
Couldbeseen as court legislating, or implementingpolicy withexecutive.
Wouldunderminecourt’s authority if advisory opinion is
issuedbutnotfollowed
Hypothetical, abstract—needfacts to determine. Don’t knowwhatfutureimplications will be.
Wouldhavetoruleon it facially insteadof as applied
Ensuringvigorous litigation
Conservation of courtresources
Criteria for Third Party Standing
Griswold (doctor challenging ban on contraceptives)
- Third party raising the arguments will do so vigorously
- Must have a close relationship (doctor, bartender (craig v. boren)
- Not likely that the actual party will raise the arguments himself
Allen v. Wright
Nationwideclass action by parents of blackschool children against IRS. Wants IRSto deny tax exempt status to privateschools that are segregated.
