The Judicial Power: Case and Controversy Requirement: Standing

Question 1

Requirements for Standing

Answer 1

• The plaintiff has an injury that is concrete and exists or will exist imminently. Article III requires invasion of a legally-protected right to have standing
• The defendant caused the injury
• The court has the power to remedy the issue.

Question 2

Singleton v. Wulff

Answer 2

Litigants have standing to represent third parties when they are an integral part of the case and the third party can’t or won’t represent herself.

Question 3

Singleton v. Wulff

Issue

Answer 3

Whether the plaintiff-appellees, as physicians who perform nonmedically indicated abortions, have standing to maintain the suit

Question 4

Singleton v. Wulff

Facts

Answer 4

Medicaid issued a rule that it would not pay for non-medically necessary abortions. Plaintiff was a doctor suing Medicaid on behalf of his poor patients.

Question 5

Singleton v. Wulff

Reasoning

Answer 5

There is adversity between the parties. The patients’ dependance on the doctors created a relationship where the doctors’ advocacy would be as effective as the patients’. The patients’ ability to represent themselves is impaired by maintaining their privacy, and the limited amount of time before the case is moot makes it impossible for women to apply to Medicaid, be denied coverage and bring a suit challenging the denial.

Question 6

Singleton v. Wulff

Holding

Answer 6

Plaintiff had standing.

Question 7

Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman

Answer 7

A statute creating actual or threatened harm can establish a legal right for standing.

Question 8

Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman

Issue

Answer 8

Whether the respondents have standing based on the FHA

Question 9

Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman

Facts

Answer 9

A blank person, Coles, tried to rent an apartment from defendant and was told there were no vacancies. Testers from Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME) went to the apartment manager and asked about vacancies. The white tester, Willis, was told there were and the black one, Coleman, was told they weren’t, so HOME found that defendant discriminated against blacks.

Question 10

Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman

Reasoning/Holding

Answer 10

The FHA created a right to the truth for “any individual.” The Coles and Coleman weren’t told the truth so they had standing. Willis did not have standing because he was told the truth.

Question 11

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Answer 11

To have standing under Article III, plaintiffs must show concrete and personal injury that is actual or imminent. There must be a causal connection between the plaintiff’s injury and the defendant’s actions. And the injury must be one the court can redress. Plaintiffs can’t bring suits that claim to harm everyone’s interests.

Question 12

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Issue

Answer 12

Whether the respondents had standing based on the Endangered Species Act.

Question 13

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Facts

Answer 13

The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service issued regulations saying section 7 of the ESA applied to foreign nations but then reversed their regulations. The reversal would increase the extinction of endangered species. Respondents wanted the courts to reverse this. Their arguments were that 2 of their members suffered harm because they planned to visit places where endangered species lived someday, and section 7(a)(2) of the ESA established right for anyone to sue any person or entity that violated the act.

Question 14

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Reasoning

Answer 14

That 2 of the Defender’s members visited places where endangered species are threatened by development, planned to return someday and were afraid that the development will threaten their opportunity to see the endangered species does not meet actual or imminent personal, concrete harm. Also, the respondents’ reading of the civil suit clause was too broad and would violate Article III’s requirement of personal injury. In addition, the only redress would be to terminate funding for the projects that were causing the species to die off more quickly and none of the funding agencies were not bound by the Court’s ruling, so there would be no relief.

Question 15

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

Holding

Answer 15

The respondents lacked standing.

Question 16

Spokeo LLC v. Robins

Answer 16

To have Article III standing, a plaintiff must have a “concrete and particularized” injury

Question 17

Spokeo LLC v. Robins

Issue

Answer 17

Whether a plaintiff must show a “concrete and particularized” injury to have standing.

Question 18

Spokeo LLC v. Robins

Facts

Answer 18

Plaintiff found out that Spokeo gave a third party inaccurate information about him in violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970.

Question 19

Spokeo LLC v. Robins

Reasoning

Answer 19

Concrete injuries don’t have to be tangible. To determine an injury is concrete, a court must look at history and Congress’ judgment. Look at whether the injury is similar to an injury in traditional American or English law. Congress is well positioned to identify intangible harms and create laws to protect against them. The risk of concrete harm might be enough for standing.

Question 20

Spokeo LLC v. Robins

Holding

Answer 20

Remand to decide whether Robins’ injury was concrete.

Question 21

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez

Answer 21

To have Article III standing, plaintiffs must have concrete harm. A key way to assess this is to compare plaintiffs’ harm to a traditional basis for a lawsuit

Question 22

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez

Issue

Answer 22

Whether all the plaintiffs had a concrete harm.

Question 23

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez

Facts

Answer 23

Plaintiff alleged defendant did not ensure the accuracy of his credit files. Spokeo used a screening program that flagged names of drug trafficker, terrorists and other criminals but didn’t distinguish between people with the same name. Plaintiff could not buy a car because his credit report said he was a terrorist or drug trafficker. Sued individually and as a class of 8,185 plaintiffs.

Question 24

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez

Reasoning/Holding

Answer 24

Even if Congress creates a legal harm and the to sue for the injury, it does not mean that plaintiffs have an injury in fact, which is necessary for standing. The court must look at each case to decide whether there is an injury in fact. Only plaintiffs who had incorrect information disseminated about them had standing because that harm was closely related to defamation

Question 25

Federal Election Commission v. Akins

Answer 25

Injury that is widely shared and abstract and indefinite but concrete can justify standing. Here, the Federal Election Commission decided that a lobbying group didn’t have to disclose information about its members. Voters sued and SCOTUS said there was concrete harm because the FEC deprived them of information that would inform their vote.

Question 26

Friends of the Earth

Answer 26

Penalties paid to the government can redress plaintiffs’ injury because they discourage defendants from ignoring the law. Therefore, defendants no longer harm plaintiffs

Question 27

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

Answer 27

States have standing as quasi-sovereigns. Massachusetts sued the EPA to compel it to regulate gas emissions that contributed to global warming. The global warming already caused the state to lose land due to flooding. This was redressable because regulating gas emissions would slow future damage.