Third Party Standing, Ripeness, and Mootness - Sept. 5 Flashcards
What is ripeness? (Q)
The doctrine of ripeness requires a claim to present an actual controversy involving a threat of real and immediate injury. Federal courts will generally decline to adjudicate a speculative dispute over future events that have not yet developed, such as a claim based on the vague possibility of general harm or a challenge to a statute that has not yet been enforced. Specifically, a federal court may decline to hear a case as unripe in favor of letting events continue to occur, which would permit increased development of a non-speculative factual record.
Congress appropriated, or allocated, certain funds to the state and local governments. Congress also enacted a bill permitting the president to take these funds away from the state and local governments without congressional approval. The president signed the bill into law. Before the president exercised this new power, a city sued in federal district court, alleging that the new law was unconstitutional. Because the city had not yet lost any federal funds under the new law, the federal government moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that the claim was not yet ripe.
Assuming the city has standing, can the court dismiss the case as unripe? (Q)
Yes. The court can dismiss the case as unripe. Federal courts have discretion to decline to hear a case if the case would benefit from the development of a more complete factual record. A case is unripe if it could benefit from more development of the factual record.
Here, even though the city has standing, the case is not yet ripe for a decision. Rather, the case will benefit from more development of the factual record as time passes and the parties can see whether or how the president exercises the power under the new law. Thus, the court can decline to hear the case unless or until more facts develop.
What is mootness? (Q)
The doctrine of mootness requires a plaintiff to bring a claim with practical significance that is not merely academic. Federal courts will dismiss a claim for mootness if a favorable decision will no longer affect the plaintiff.
Generally, when does a plaintiff’s case become moot on standing grounds? (Q)
A plaintiff’s case generally becomes moot on standing grounds if the plaintiff no longer possesses a redressable injury that a federal court can remedy through a judgment favorable to the plaintiff. This loss of standing means that no live case or controversy exists. Thus, the federal courts cannot adjudicate the plaintiff’s claim after it becomes moot.
If a defendant voluntarily ceases the challenged conduct at the basis of a plaintiff’s claim, is the claim moot? (Q)
No. A court will not dismiss a claim for mootness if the defendant has merely voluntarily ceased the challenged conduct, even if a favorable court decision would not affect the plaintiff. Courts reason that such cases are not moot because a defendant had repeatedly violated a law in the past, and thus the challenged conduct is likely to resume.
If a plaintiff can no longer be affected by a favorable court decision, is the plaintiff’s claim always moot? (Q)
No. If a plaintiff can no longer be affected by a favorable court decision, the plaintiff’s claim is not always moot. Specifically, if a claim presents issues capable of repetition, yet evading review because events elapse faster than judicial review, the claim is not moot.
A state law required that a new resident live in the state for at least 90 days before registering to vote. Registration was required before anyone could vote. A new resident moved to the state 60 days before a vote was scheduled and was unable to register to vote in that election. The new resident sued in federal district court, alleging that the law violated the new resident’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. The primary election occurred before the new resident’s case was heard. The state registered the new resident after the statutory 90-day waiting period. Accordingly, even though the case was still pending, the new resident was able to vote in the general election. The state filed a motion to dismiss the new resident’s action as moot.
Can the federal district court dismiss the case as moot? (Q)
No. The court cannot dismiss the case as moot because this type of claim is capable of repetition without review. If there is no longer an injury for the court to redress, then a claim can be dismissed as moot. However, the federal courts will not apply the mootness doctrine if it would make it impossible to ever decide a constitutional claim on the merits. If a moot constitutional claim is capable of repetition, yet evades review, then the federal courts will decide the claim to protect similarly situated people who would otherwise still be subject to the unconstitutional law.
Here, the new resident could vote in the general election, no longer had an injury, and the claim became moot. However, if the court dismissed this Fourteenth Amendment claim, it might never be heard on the merits due to the violation’s brief timing. Therefore, the court cannot dismiss this case as moot.
If a representative plaintiff’s individual claim in a class action becomes moot, is the entire class action claim moot? (Q)
No. If a representative plaintiff’s individual claim in a class action becomes moot, the entire class action claim is not moot. So long as the remaining members of the class may still be affected by a favorable decision, the claim is not moot.
Must a claim brought in federal court meet the requirements of standing, ripeness, and mootness to fulfill Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement? (Q)
Yes. To fulfill Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, a claim brought in federal court must meet the requirements of:
standing (i.e., ensuring that the parties have a personal stake in the outcome of a case or controversy, and that the courts are in position to provide the desired relief);
ripeness (i.e., ensuring that the claim presents an actual controversy involving a threat of real and immediate injury); and
mootness (i.e., ensuring that the claim has practical significance that is not merely academic or no longer ripe).
What is prudential standing? (Q)
Prudential standing refers to rules arising from federal court decisions governing when, in the courts’ prudence, they may hear cases properly within their jurisdiction. In contrast to prudential standing rules, the Article III standing requirements (i.e., an injury-in-fact that is caused by the defendant and redressable in federal court), arise from the U.S. Constitution. A plaintiff must have both prudential standing and Article III standing to bring a claim in federal court.
What is third-party standing? (Q)
Third-party standing refers to an individual’s ability to litigate the rights of another in federal court. In general, a plaintiff must assert his or her own rights, rather than the rights of a third party. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has found them difficult to classify, the Court has called the limitations on third-party standing a prudential-standing rule.
When does an organization have standing to sue on behalf of its members? (Q)
An organization has standing to sue on behalf of its members if:
the individual members would have standing to sue on their own,
the interests sought to be protected are germane to the organization’s purposes, and
the lawsuit does not require the participation of individual members.
Can an individual ever have standing to sue on behalf of a third party? (Q)
Yes. Although in general, a plaintiff must assert his or her own rights, rather than the rights of a third party, an individual plaintiff may have standing to sue on behalf of a third party in rare cases. In permitting an individual plaintiff to sue on behalf of a third party, courts examine two relevant factors:
the relationship of the plaintiff to the third party, and
the ability of the third party to assert his or her own right.
In rare cases, for example, an individual plaintiff may sue on behalf of a third party due to privacy interests or fear of retaliation.
What are the four exceptions to the mootness doctrine? (Siegel)
- Collateral Injury
- Capable of repetition yet evading review [CRYER] (Abortion and Voting Rights)
- Voluntary cessation
- Class actions
(Class 5 PPT)
What is a collateral injury? (Siegel)
Residual or secondary injury, maybe unintended. Something that lingers or comes in after the regular injury.
Ex: Main injury is imprisonment, collateral is all the stuff that comes with being a convicted felon
