Standing Flashcards
Standing
Must have an Art. III ‘cases and controversies’ claim
3 Requirements
- is there an injury in fact?
- either actual or imminent
- not abstract or hypothetical
- must be distinct and palpable
- is the injury fairly traceable to the action
- is the injury redressable
Two Types of Standing Issues
- Prudential- imposed on itself and on lower federal courts
- can create prudential rules on how cases will be handled, that the Constitution does not impose
- Constitutional- constitution prohibits standing in this type of case
Allen v. Wright
- black parents sued IRS to enforce statute so discrimination would not occur
- stigmatic injury failed because injury was too abstract to be palpable; not distinct to any single person
- inferior education allegation failed because injury was not fairly traceable to govt. conduct.
- holding was that injury was not distinct and palpable nor fairly traceable
U.S. v. SCRAP
- statute invited citizens to file suit
- students sued to enforce govt. doing enviornmental impact statement
- specifically alledged damages
- SCOTUS said there was standing here
- said injury was distinct and palpable and fairly traceable to action being challenged
- there was a nexus between the act and the enviornment SCRAP wanted to enjoy
Heckler v. Matthews
- challenged statute that gave larger SS benefits to women than men
- SCOTUS said that standing here was fine
- discrimination can cause serious non-economic injuries to those persons who ‘personally’ are denied equal treatment soley because they were a member of a disfavored group
- injuries don’t have to necessarily be economic; equal protection injuries are OK
L.A. v. Lyons
- sued for an injunction against LAPD to stop using choke holds
- SCOTUS said that injury must be redressable- no standing on a ‘threat of future injury because it was too speculative that Lyons himself would be subjected to hold again.
- when a court is regulating the behavior of another branch of govt., for the injury to be redressable- must be a tight correlation and court will be very demanding on other requirements
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
- congress can’t just create standing out of thin air
- congress can create a right, which if damaged, will create standing
- still need standing requirements
- court will look more favorably
Mass. v. EPA
- Mass sued the EPA for enviornmental damage being caused somewhere else
- a state has standing when suing for environmental damage being caused elsewhere
- states have a lesser standing standard than if congress had specifically identified a group
- the three part test will almost always be fulfilled if a state sues in these cases
Flast v. Cohen
Taxpayer standing rule (actually the exception to the rule)
- the statute challenged has to be a statue enacted under Congresses taxing and spending powers- appropriation statute
- litigant has to be a taxpayer
- taxpayer has to specifically identify what the precise nature is of the constitutional infringement alleged
- the constitutional violation alleged must be one that creates a personal right rather than a structure of government issue
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State
P’s (federal taxpayers) challenged government’s giving of surplus federal property to a religious college
• example of how the court is retreating from Flast v. Cohen
• here, there wasn’t a nexus between the P as a taxpayer and the exercise of federal power
• property was given under the property power of the congress, not the taxing power
Raines v. Bird
- is there special legislator standing if they think a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional
- no general legislator standing
Ripeness- United Public Workers v. Mitchell
- a case must be ripe to come before a court
- a case is ripe if the interests of the litigants require the use of judicial authority for protection against actual or imminent interference
- hypothetical interference is not enough
Mootness- DuFunis v. Odegaard
UW law school denied admission to student who sued
• SCOTUS said that since because student was in 3rd year and school would do nothing to prevent him from graduating, the issue was moot
• case must be viable at all stages of litigation
Exceptions to Mootness Doctrine
- unilateral voluntary cessation
- i.e. D’s say they’re going to stop doing what was sued over
- capable of repetition, yet evading review
