Select Page

Federal Jurisdiction
University of Mississippi School of Law
Cochran, George C.

1)    Justiciability
a)    Standing: determination of whether a specific person is the proper party to bring a matter to the court for adjudication. 
i)      Constitutional requirements: they are derived from the court’s interpretation of Article III as constitutional restrictions and cannot be overridden by statute
(1) The P must allege that he or she has suffered or imminently will suffer an injury (ensures that disputes will be actual and concrete- not hypothetical)
(a) Sierra Club v. Morton: no standing b/c Sierra Club failed to show that any members had used the park and would be adversely affected by its destruction
(b) US v. SCRAP: aesthetic and environmental injuries are sufficient for standing so long as the P claims to suffer the harm personally
(i)    increase in railroad freight charges, claim it would reduce recycling b/c too expensive to transport goods
(ii)   standing claim based on the argument that this would lead to the destruction of forests, streams and mountains in the area that the students enjoy
(c) City of Los Angeles v. Lyons: suit seeking injunctive or declaratory relief against the use of the chokehold by LAPD; court held that to meet the personally suffered injury requirement the P must show a substantial likelihood of future harm; so Lyons did not have standing he could have brought a suit for damages from the injuries caused by the use of the chokehold but no standing to enjoin b/c he could demonstrate a substantial likelihood that he would personally be choked again in the future; otherwise it would be like any citizen bring suit alleging a police practice is unconstitutional
(i)    County of Riverside v. McLaughlin: applied Lyons and rejected a motion to dismiss b/c the court held that since the plaintiffs were still in custody they were continuing to suffer that injury
(ii)   Lujan: no standing b/c no evidence of substantial likelihood that they will be injured in the future by a destruction of the ES abroad (they needed concrete plans to return)
(2) P must allege that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct (causation)
(a) Allen v. Wright: causation and redressability are distinct and separate hurdles for standing of which both must be satisfied
(i)    Parents of black school children brought a class action against the IRS claiming that it failed to carry out its statutory obligation to deny tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools
1.    Injuries alleged:
a.    Stigma created by government funded discriminatory schools
i.      Court said this injury too abstract
b.    The children’s opportunity to receive education in a desegregated school were diminished by the continued tax breaks to such schools
i.      Court said this is an injury
ii.     But, denied standing b/c there was no showing of causation
iii.    The injury alleged is not fairly traceable to the government conduct respondents challenge as unlawful
iv.   Footnote: the court stated that even though a change in the IRS policy might redress the injury, it is insufficient for standing because the IRS did not cause the segregation
(b) Duke Power v. Carolina Environmental Study Group: Ps challenged the constitutionality of the Price Anderson Act which limited the liability of utility companies in the event of a nuclear reactor accident, Ps claimed this was a DP violation b/c it allowed injuries to occur w/o compensation
(i)    Standing: SC said that it exists b/c the construction of a nuclear reactor in their area would expose them to numerous injuries
(ii)   Causation and Redressability aspects were satisfied b/c but for the Price- Anderson Act the reactor would not be built and the P’s would not suffer such harms
(iii) Price Anderson Act was upheld as constitutional
(3) The P must allege that a favorable federal court decision is likely to redress that injury
ii)     Prudential requirements: not based on the Constitution but on prudent judicial administration and Congress may override by statute
(1) A party must assert his or her rights only and not the claims of third parties
(a) A P can only assert injuries that he or she has suffered
(b) A P cannot present the claims of third parties who are not part of the lawsuit
(c) Three major exceptions to this prohibition:
(i)    Where the third party is unlikely able to sue
1.    there are substantial obstacles to the third party asserting his or her own rights and if,
2.    there is reason to believe that the advocate will effectively represent the interests of the third party
3.    Barrows v. Jackson: court found standing and permitted an individual sued for breaching a racially restrictive covenant to assert the rights of blacks in the community
a.    Barrows- white person, signed the covenant and sued for breach b/c allowed non-whites to live there
b.    The court stated that it would be difficult if not impossible for the persons whose rights are asserted to present their grievances before any court b/c they were not a party to the covenant and had no basis for participating in a breach of K suit
4.    Eisenstadt v. Baird: Baird was prosecuted for distributing contraceptives to unmarried couples, he asserted the rights of these individuals to have access and use contraceptives
a.    Court found that there was standing b/c unmarried persons are not subject to prosecution in Massachusetts and
b.    To that extent, they are denied a forum in which to assert their own rights
5.    Powers v. Ohio: SC held that parties in a litigation may raise the claims of prospective jurors to be free from discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges
(ii)   Close relationship between plaintiff and third party
1.    Pierce v. Society of Sisters: a parochial school was accorded standing to challenge an Oregon law requiring all children to attend public school, the sisters claimed this law violated the rights of parents to control the upbringing of their children
a.    Allowed third party standing b/c of the close relationship b/w the school and parents and
b.    b/c the school was part of the regulated activity of providing parochial education
2.    Singleton v. Wulff: two physicans were awarded standing to challenge a state statute that prohibited the use of state Medicaid benefits to pay for nontherapeutic abortions (not necessary to save mom’s life), the doctors were injured b/c they were denied payments
a.    Additionally awarded standing b/c of the close relationship b/w doctor and patient
b.    “it is generally appropriate to allow a physician to assert the rights of women patients as against governmental interference with the abortion decision”
3.    Craig v. Boren: involved the sale of beer to women at 18 and boys at 21, the suit was brought by a bartender on behalf of male customers b/w the ages of 18 and 21
a.    Bartender’s loss: economic injury/ lost sales
b.    “vendors and those in like positions have been uniformly permitted to resist efforts at restricting their operations by acting as advocates for the rights of third parties who seek access to their market or function”
(iii) The overbreadth doctrine: permits

was a concrete injury sufficient for standing
3.    Important b/c clearly holds that Congress by statute can create rights that would not otherwise exist and the alleged violation of those rights is sufficient for standing, even under a broad citizen suit provision and even where the injury is widely shared in society
(3) A party must raise a claim within the zone of interests protected by the statute in question
(a) This requirement applies when a person is challenging an administrative agency regulation that does not directly control the person’s actions
(b) The P may sue if it can show that it is within the group intended to benefit from the statute
(c) Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp: (Data Processing Test) “A person has standing if he or she has suffered an injury and if “the interest sought to be protected by the complainant is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question”
(i)    Likely only applies in cases under the APA
iii)    Associational Standing: an organization’s mere concern about a problem is not enough to meet the requirement for injury, the organization only has standing if it or its members would be affected in a tangible way by the challenged action
(1) Sierra Club v. Morton: denied standing b/c failed to allege harm to itself or members by the construction of the ski lodge
(2) NAACP v. Alabama: allowed representational standing b/c members who wish to remain anonymous might not come forward and their speech and association rights would be violated therefore allowing the NAACP to sue on their behalf was appropriate
(3) Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm.: Three part test for determining when an organization may sue on behalf of its members:
(a) Its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right
(b) The interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose, and
(c) Neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation in the lawsuit of the individual members
(4) Int’l Union, UAW v. Brock: affirmed the Hunt test and allowed the union to sue on behalf of the workers
(5) United Food and Commercial Workers v. Brown Group: reaffirmed the Hunt test and clarified the third prong
(a) That neither the claim nor the relief requested requires the participation of the individual members is prudential and not constitutional
(b) Congress can override it in allowing the association to sue for damages on behalf of its members
iv)   Legislators’ Standing: no special access, must have standing, not difficult when they have personal injury but is difficult when they sue on the basis of injuries to his or her ability to perform as a representative
(1) Raines v.Byrd: suit by members challenging the Line Item Veto Act
(a) SC said no standing