Pg 5 Flashcards
What are the elements of individual standing?
– injury in fact
– causation between injury and conduct
– capable of judicial redress
What is the element of standing that calls for injury in fact?
This requires a distinct and palpable injury. The plaintiff must have suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that was concrete, particularized, actual, and imminent - not conjectural or hypothetical. This can be a present injury or significant threat of an imminent injury that is either economic, aesthetic, environmental, or intangible.
If a plaintiff lives in a racially gerrymandered district, does he have standing to sue?
Yes, because his injury is assumed.
What are the sub-elements for injury in fact as an element of standing?
- concrete and particularized
– actual or imminent
– caused by the defendant
Do generalized grievances like harm to the environment count as injury in fact for standing?
If they cannot be differentiated from shared members of the public at large, they are not the basis for standing. But widely shared injury can still give standing if the harm is concrete.
Ideological opposition to government policy is not enough.
Is it necessary that a harm be a completed harm in order to count as an injury in fact for standing?
No, as long as there is a substantial threat of real harm that is present throughout the entire course of litigation. This essentially means that the injury is certainly impending. Just past exposure is not enough.
Ie: if you invested money into producing a product, but then were stopped from selling it, that would be imminent threat of economic injury
If you desire to use or observe animal species is that enough for standing?
Yes, but just working with or observing endangered species does not mean harm if there’s just a single act that affects a portion of a species somewhere in the world. To claim injury for something like environmental damage or animals, you must use the actual area that is affected by the activity, not the rough vicinity
If you intend to return someplace that there has been environmental damage to, is that enough for standing to sue?
Not unless you have actual plans to go there
If you get asked on an exam which plaintiff has the best standing, which do you pick?
The one that is personally injured. If there are many plaintiffs, pick the one that had an economic or dollar injury
If a member of a group claims that the government has erected unconstitutional barriers that make it harder for the plaintiff to get a benefit than for members of other groups, does he have standing?
Yes because he is objecting to the denial of equal treatment under the equal protection clause.
He doesn’t have to prove that if the program was struck down he would’ve gotten the benefit, he just has to show he was ABLE and READY to get the benefit and a discriminatory policy prevented him from doing it on an equal basis.
Injury in fact is the unequal treatment, and he must show causality. Injury is the inability to compete on an equal footing
What are examples of things that would count as an injury for standing?
Lost profits, lost market share, reduced sales, etc.
What is involved in the element of standing that requires causation?
There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct. It must be fairly traceable to the action of the defendant and not the result of some independent action of a third-party.
What is involved in the element of standing that calls for something being capable of judicial redress?
It must be substantially likely, not just speculative, that the relief the plaintiff seeks will redress the injury
What are some typical problems that occur regarding standing?
- P can’t prove a personal injury
- P claims an intangible personal injury that is general and not personal
- an organization sues not on behalf of someone suffering actual or threatened injury
- the injury is speculative and uncertain
What is required in order for a taxpayer to have standing?
The logical nexus test is implemented. This requires a logical nexus between the status of a person as a taxpayer and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement that is alleged.
If there is no congressional legislation, does a citizen have standing to challenge a federal action as unconstitutional?
No, with the exception that citizen taxpayers can challenge government spending when spending violates the establishment clause
Do Federal taxpayers have standing to sue just because they are taxpayers?
No, their interest is too remote and uncertain to sue about things like the manner of expenditure since taxes become part of the general revenue and they lose their separate identity with the particular taxpayer. In order to have standing the party that’s bringing the suit must show he has suffered or will suffer an immediate direct injury, not an indefinite injury that is common to people generally
Can taxpayers challenge earmarked taxes?
Sometimes they can challenge paying special taxes because the purpose is unconstitutional.
What are the circumstances where federal taxpayers can challenge spending?
- if they are challenging the exercise of taxing on the spending power and not just a regulatory measure
– if they are arguing that the enactment violates a specific constitutional limitation on taxing or spending power
How does third-party standing work?
If a practical obstacle stops a party from asserting his own rights, the court allows a third-party to have standing and considers whether that third-party has a sufficient injury in fact to satisfy the case or controversy requirement, and if he can be reasonably expected to properly frame the issues and present them with the necessary adversarial zeal. Courts will not allow this if they think the person seeking standing will not be an adequate representative of the third-party’s interests
What is the best plaintiff rule?
A usually can’t raise the legal rights of B, even if A’s injury is enough for his own claim. B is the best person to litigate claims that affect him. This insures that the most effective and concerned advocate is the person before the court
What are the things that a court considers when it determines whether someone has third-party standing or not?
- the importance of the relationship between the litigant and the third-party
- the ability of the third-party to vindicate his own rights
- whether the third party’s rights will be diluted if he isn’t allowed the representation
What are exceptions for situations when third-party standing is allowed?
– if A can show there’s enough reason for B letting him litigate his claim
– it is difficult or impossible for B to do it himself
– if there’s a close personal relationship between A and B [doctor-patient: privacy rights protected in abortion issue]
What is associational standing?
This allows organizations to raise the legal rights of and bring suit on behalf of their members.
What are the elements that are required to have associational standing?
– individual member has injury in fact for article III standing
– the interests are relevant and germane to the organization’s purposes
– the claims asserted or the relief requested do not require participation of the individual member
– the organization itself has an adversarial interest
What does it mean that the individual member must have an injury in fact in order for associational standing to be allowed?
That person must technically be able to assert his own rights because he has an injury in fact
What is involved in the element for associational standing that requires that the interest be relevant or germane to the organization’s purpose?
It must relate to that purpose.
For example, universities have the requirement to educate, and immigration laws may have a peripheral effect on this, but it isn’t the purpose of the university to exercise control over immigration policies
What is involved in the element for associational standing that requires that the organization itself has an adversarial interest?
The organization must have a genuine case or controversy capable of judicial resolution. It cannot be advisory or theoretical.
Ie: this occurs when all of the association’s members collectively do something, like access the market, and no individual facts separate the member’s interests
It must also be proven that the members possess an indicia of membership in the organization. This means that the person associates with the organization through contribution or participation. Only one member must individually have standing
How does associational standing depend on the nature of the relief being sought?
Injunctive, declaratory, and prospective relief are easier to get because all members will benefit from it. If the injury is not common to the entire membership or shared by all in equal degree, the association doesn’t have standing to sue for its member’s damage claims
