I. Threshold Issues
A. Justiciabilty: Standing, Ripeness, Mootness, and Political Questions.
1. Standing: The “case or controversy” requirement of Art. III. The party bringing suit must satisfy three criteria:
a.
All three are required
Injury in fact: P must show that he has suffered an actual, concrete, individualized injury, or is in imminent danger of suffering one. No standing for generalized grievances.
b. Causal Connection: The D’s conduct must be the proximate cause of the injury; it must be “fairly traceable” (Allen v. Wright) to the D’s conduct, and the link must not be attenuated.
c. Redressibility: The court must be able to remedy, correct, or redress the injury. I.e. injunctive relief, damages, and etc.
d. Prudential Limits and Exceptions to Standing:
i. The Third Party Rule: a person can not bring a suit on someone else’s behalf (except legal guardians, etc) nor for the public at large. This is not a constitutional limit it is a prudential limit imposed by the S. Ct..
(a) Exception: An association is generally allowed to bring suit on behalf of one of its members.
ii. No Taxpayer Standing: Generally one who claims his injury arises from his status as a Federal taxpayer does not have standing. Ex.: claim of overspending his tax dollars. However, a state taxpayer may have standing to litigate the legality of state expenditures (S.Ct. has never definitely said). Municipal taxpayers do have standing to sue the city.
(a) Exception: A Federal taxpayer does have standing to challenge Federal govt. expenditures alleged to violate the Establishment Clause (religion).
iii. Citizen Suit Provisions: Congress includes provisions in some laws allowing citizens to sue, but the Court still requires them to meet the standing criteria. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment. Nor can a law grant a person or group standing to force the executive to take action against a third party. Fed. Election Comm. v. Atkins.
iv. Environmental Standing: The Court may recognize one kind of standing w/o actual injury to a person or his property. To have environmental standing to sue (over illegal harm to public lands for example), P must show that one’s livelihood depends on the area harmed (scientist, etc), or that they regularly view the area for aesthetic purposes. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. (Plaintiffs did not have standing b/c they could not demonstrate regular visits).
v. Legislative Standing: Members of Congress do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a law alleged to do harm to their official powers. Raines v. Byrd.
vi. Equal Protection suits and lost opportunities: The court does recognize standing where the plaintiff has been denied equal treatment, notwithstanding the lack of actual injury suffered. Thus even if it is unlikely that P would have received what he wanted (the contract, admission) if he alleges that he did not have the same chance as everyone else, he will be heard. The “injury in fact” is the denial of equal treatment. Northeastern Florida Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors v. Jacks
cision best left to other branches.
d. A decision would show lack of respect for another branch.
e. Unusual need to adhere to a previous policy decision (Ex Parte McCardle)
f. Possibility of embarrassment to govt. from separate pronouncements on same issue by different branches.
g. Impeachment (U.S. v. Nixon (the judge)).
h. Guaranty Clause arguments (Baker v. Carr)
II. The Commerce Clause Power, Art. I §8 cl. 3:
A. Gives to Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce: Note: Lopez reigned in the power of Congress by requiring the regulated activity have a substantial economic effect on I/S commerce. The dissent in Lopez argued that activities which significantly affect I/S commerce can be regulated and argued that the cumulative effects theory applied to the gun control issue
1. What is I/S commerce?
a. Acts of I/S commerce: The most obvious, a person in one state sells something to someone in another.
b. Channels of I/S commerce: highways, waterways, Internet, and etc. (Gibbons v. Ogden)
c. Instrumentalities of I/S commerce: Trucks, trains, and etc. (Gibbons v. Ogden)
Intra-state activities which have a substantial effect (U.S. v. Lopez) on Interstate commerce.
