Standing

Question 1

Advisory Opinions Rule:

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

Standing (Elements)

Answer 2

(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.

Question 3

“injury in fact”

Answer 3

an invasion of a legally- protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, 1 (b) “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’

Question 4

Causation

Answer 4

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.”

Question 5

Standing: (Other “Prudential” Requirements)

Answer 5

• 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)

Question 6

Citizen / Taxpayer suits

Answer 6

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.

Question 7

Justiciable Cases (generally):

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

Limits on congressional creation of Standing

Answer 8

• 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.)

Question 9

Congressional Power to “define Injuries and articulate Chains of Causation.”

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

State Standing

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

“Taxpayer Standing.” “Flast Exception”

Answer 11

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)

Question 12

State Taxpayers

Answer 12

No federal court standing

Daimler Chrysler Corp. V. Cuno

Question 13

Municipal Taxpayer Standing

Answer 13

Do have standing.

Question 14

Citizen Suits

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

Third Party Standing

Answer 15

• 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,

Question 16

ii.The “Zone of Interests” Requirement

Answer 16

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.

Question 17

Ripeness

Answer 17

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.”

Question 18

Mootness

Answer 18

“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).”

Question 19

Capable of Repetition, Yet evading review (exception)

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

Political Question Doctrine

Answer 20

• 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.

Question 21

Political Question Areas (3 types)

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

E.g. Republican form of government:

Answer 22

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.”

Question 23

Baker v. Carr (justiciability)

Answer 23

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.

Question 24

Nixon v. United States

Answer 24

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.

Question 25

Coleman v. Miller

Answer 25

Questions relating to whether or not a State’s ratification of a constitutional amendment was valid = Non-justiciable Political question.

(Court found NO basis for judicial review in the constitution)

No Textual commitment = No judicially cognizable standards for a decision.

Question 26

Vieth v. Jubelirer, (Gerrymandering)

Answer 26

“no judicially discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating political gerrymandering claims.”

Question 27

Baker Factors (Justiciability of Political Questions)

Answer 27

Political Questions involve:

1) issue has historically been managed by another branch.
2) no judicially manageable standards for resolving it.
3) impossibility of deciding the case without an initial policy determination calling for nonjudicial discretion.
4) impossibility of resolution without expressing a lack of respect due other government branches.
5) an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made.
6) potentiality of embarrassment from different opinions from governmental departments on one question.

Question 28

Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979),

Answer 28

plurality of four justices found nonjusticiable the question of whether President Carter was constitutionally entitled unilaterally to abrogate a defense treaty with Taiwan.
Reasoning:
[In] light of the absence of any constitutional provision governing the termination of a Treaty, and the fact that different termination procedures may be appropriate for different treaties, the [issue is not justiciable].

Consider, however, the institutional costs of judicial review.
Baker Factor #5) an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made.

Question 29

standing of associations / organizations

Answer 29

• members must have standing individually
• at least one member must establish they have or will suffer an injury.
• interests must be related to the organizations purpose.
• does not require the participation of the individual members.