standing2

Information about standing2

Published on October 12, 2007

Author: CoolDude26

Source: authorstream.com

Content

Slide1:  Justiciability – Part III (Special Problems in Standing) Jan. 27, 2006 Standing Elements:  Standing Elements Discrete and Palpable Injury Caused by Defendant's (alleged) Action Remediable by Court Plaintiff's personal rights at stake 1. Injury in Fact:  1. Injury in Fact General Rule: Plaintiff must allege a discrete & palpable injury differentiated, unique no generalized grievances class actions ok legally cognizable breach of Hohfeldian rights personal & proprietary interests (positive or common law) contrast: public rights & ideological interests (Sierra Club) Non de-minimus (rules out taxpayer standing) Injury must be existent or imminent speculative future injuries not included Taxpayer Standing:  Taxpayer Standing General Rule: Taxpayer injury (higher taxes) is both de minimus, and not “caused” by illegal expenditures Flast v. Cohen (1968) Exception for “establishment clause” claims Clause intended specifically to preclude religious tax Dual nexus test between injury and defendant’s action (causation) between injury and constitutional claim this 2nd element never followed; Flast limited to its facts 2. Causation:  2. Causation General Rule: D’s illegal action is legal cause of P’s injury “But for” test (need not be “proximate” cause) Linda R.S. v. Richard D. (1973) Was state’s failure to enforce child support decree the reason father stopped paying? If he wouldn’t pay despite enforcement (e.g., jail), then lack of enforcement is not a “but for” cause See also Simon v. EKWRO; Allen v. Wright Note: relation between causation and remedy elements of standing Similar relation between injury & causation Duke Power v. CESG (1978):  Duke Power v. CESG (1978) Facts: Neighbors of nuclear power plant challenge Price-Anderson Act, which limits liability ($640M) Claim: limits violate due process Injury: Inadequate compensation for nuclear accident Speculative, future injury Depressed property values near power plant Current injury Causation Federal Act causes this specific injury 3. Redressability:  3. Redressability Court must be able to fashion a remedy that will alleviate plaintiff’s injury Often the flip side of causation inquiry Sometimes due to nature of requested relief Example: Linda R.S. v. Richard D. (1973) Jailing father for non-support doesn't get mother more $$ Example: Warth v. Seldin (1975) Invalidating exclusionary housing ord. does not necessarily result in more affordable housing Inability to alleviate the injury is tanta-mount to rendering an "advisory opinion" Standing Elements:  Standing Elements Discrete and Palpable Injury Caused by Defendant Remediable by Court Plaintiff's personal rights at stake Irreducible minimums of Article III 4. Personal Rights:  4. Personal Rights Jus Tertii Standing Ordinarily, plaintiff must allege the violation of a right that is personal to her More vigorous proponent of right – better advocate "Prudential" element To avoid needless friction with other branches If right holder not sufficiently interested, why decide? Court can craft exceptions For countervailing policy reasons Not so with Art. III restrictions Jus Tertii standing:  Jus Tertii standing General rule: Must assert own rights, not those of 3rd parties This is a prudential rule of self-restraint Designed to avoid needless friction w/ other branches Rights holder is generally best advocate Why adjudicate the issue if absent from proceeding? Exceptions: Right holder not available to vindicate right Special relationship between P and right holder Overriding policy desire to vindicate right Craig v. Boren (1976):  Craig v. Boren (1976) Curtis Craig (on right) and his lawyers Craig v. Boren (1976):  Craig v. Boren (1976) General rule: Each P must establish standing (on each claim) Craig: mooted (NB he sought prospective relief) Whitener: Meets first 3 standing elements; not 4th Exceptions: Special relationship Doctor-patient; parent-child; bartender-patron? Rights holders not readily available Chilling effect of laws burdening 1st amd rights Waiver? Citizen Standing:  Citizen Standing General rule: No “citizen” standing (generalized grievance) Assuring Exec. Branch compliance with law Congress has few oversight mechanisms Exec. Branch violations that do not readily create discrete and palpable injury Actions occurring overseas Pres. Reagan’s violation of Bolton Act Pres. Bush’s policies re. war on terrorism Actions with broad-based impact Private attorney general theory Congress’ control over standing:  Congress’ control over standing Injury-in-fact (element #1) Hohfeldian rights (including statutory rights) Congress may create rights in large groups of people E.g., FEC v. Akins (1998) (any aggrieved voter could sue to enforce FECA - standing upheld) Statute is not dispositive; S.Ct. retains ultimate authority to determine if this is a cognizable injury Personal rights (element #4) Where injury-in-fact arises from breach of statutory right, congress fixes “zone of interest” Statute is dispositive Compare “zone of interest” for constitutional rights Slide15:  v. Secretary of the Interior, Manuel Lujan Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992):  Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) 1. Injury in Fact: AID-funded projects threaten habitat of endan-gered species (crocodile, elephant & leopard) Do endangered animals have standing? Do humans if they study/recreate with endangered species? [vocational or professional injury] Slide19:  “Teldeniya, a village once renowned for producing cotton, tobacco, coconuts and vegetables, now lies buried under several hundred tons of water of the [Mahaweli] reservoir.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992):  Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) 1. Injury in Fact: Is the injury discrete & palpable to plaintiff? Specific or conjectural? Some certainty required – injury must be “imminent” Undifferentiated “some day” intent insufficient How proximate must the injury be? Scalia: “Person claiming injury from environmental damage must use the [specific] area affected by the challenged action” rejects ecosystem and animal nexii How much proof req’d at summary judgment? See Blackmun/O’Connor dissent Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992):  Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) 2. Causation: Did (or will) Secretary of Interior, by failing to require AID to consult on dam building project, cause plaintiff’s object of study to disappear? Does lack of consultation inevitably mean funding of projects? NB: the right asserted (consultation) is a procedural one, not a substantive one What if congress actually prohibited projects causing env. damage? Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992):  Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) 3. Redressability: Pl’s don’t seek to bar project, or funding, but to require promulgation of rules requiring consultation Would the regulations be binding on “Action Agencies” (project sponsors)? Even if they were, is that enough to interrupt project? Is this a matter for the jury? Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992):  Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) Procedural vs. Substantive Rights No injury to substantive right (observe animals) But clear injury to procedural right – gov’t must follow the law Citizen-suit provision in Endangered Species Act Is this an “injury in fact”? 4. Personal Rights: General rule: plaintiffs can only sue to protect their own rights, not those of 3rd parties. Example: police conduct warrantless search of my neighbor’s house and find contraband belonging to me Examine right to see if pl. is within the “zone of interest” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992):  Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) Can Congress create personal rights that satisfy Art. III injury injury requirement? Violating substantive statutory right = injury-in-fact Same for non-instrumental (procedural) rights? Congress can decide whether plaintiff is within zone of interest of statutory right (jus tertii issue), but Cannot decide whether that satisfies “injury in fact” requirement Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992):  Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) Non-instrumental (procedural) rights Most procedural rights are designed to protect substantive rights E.g., hearings on gov’t benefits Some procedural rights are designed to promote “good government” processes E.g., Env’l Impact Statements (“non-instrumental” rights) These rights are “cheap to confer;” conferred on everyone Right to information is instrumental. FEC v. Atkins The violation of a non-instrumental right does not create a “cognizable injury” Is this an outgrowth of SoP? Which branch loses? Which branch gains? Standing and Article III:  Standing and Article III How can Congress fix lack of standing to enforce procedural rights? Create more substantive rights I.e., impose substantive restrictions on Executive Does this solution promote SoP? Legislative Standing:  Legislative Standing General rule: C-members must satisfy all standing elements Vigorously enforced; entails Ct. in inter-branch spat Should Ct. be more/less willing to intervene in SoP struggles? Injury in fact Personal (unique to P) See Powell v. McCormack (1969) (Rep. Powell had standing to challenge his exclusion from the House) Official (common to all members) But unique to P’s representational status Usually when President violates SoP by usurping or interfering with congressional power See Souter concurrence Raines v. Byrd (1997):  Raines v. Byrd (1997) Claim: Line Item Veto Act violates “presentment clause” (SoP) Injury: Institutional injury - loss of congress’ power See Goldwater v. Carter (Pres. Carter’s refusal to submit cancellation of treaty to Senate) Difference between negation of legislators’ vote (not getting to vote) and dilution (lesser effect) of vote Byrd not complaining that he won’t get to vote on appropriations but that vote won’t be given full effect Should that make any difference, as Rehnquist says? Raines v. Byrd (1997):  Raines v. Byrd (1997) Injury: Byrd’s injury is common to all reps, yet they haven’t joined the lawsuit Looks like these Ps are challenging the acts of fellow congress members, not the president. Perhaps, where a rep’s injury is undifferentiated, the Court should stay out unless a majority agree

Related presentations


Other presentations created by CoolDude26

CH8 PowerPoint Robotics
31. 12. 2007
0 views

CH8 PowerPoint Robotics

challenging behavior
17. 09. 2007
0 views

challenging behavior

ch1
17. 09. 2007
0 views

ch1

IP P mohan
19. 09. 2007
0 views

IP P mohan

RMP October 2006 Data
11. 10. 2007
0 views

RMP October 2006 Data

lam talk
15. 10. 2007
0 views

lam talk

Escher
15. 10. 2007
0 views

Escher

2006 Radicarbon History
16. 10. 2007
0 views

2006 Radicarbon History

pre b373
17. 10. 2007
0 views

pre b373

banderas2
22. 10. 2007
0 views

banderas2

ostrichsm
17. 09. 2007
0 views

ostrichsm

209 OASIS Ostrich presentation
17. 09. 2007
0 views

209 OASIS Ostrich presentation

ssec software development
07. 10. 2007
0 views

ssec software development

dianxinyezhuanxing
12. 10. 2007
0 views

dianxinyezhuanxing

africa presentation
23. 10. 2007
0 views

africa presentation

spatial databases
23. 10. 2007
0 views

spatial databases

vollhardt lecc2005
17. 10. 2007
0 views

vollhardt lecc2005

232nm13
29. 10. 2007
0 views

232nm13

ans321L2
17. 09. 2007
0 views

ans321L2

Plan Bleu partie2
24. 10. 2007
0 views

Plan Bleu partie2

05 galaxies
29. 08. 2007
0 views

05 galaxies

nuclearWeapons
23. 12. 2007
0 views

nuclearWeapons

ChristensenNov2
29. 08. 2007
0 views

ChristensenNov2

Unit3
03. 01. 2008
0 views

Unit3

como fazer palestra espirita
07. 01. 2008
0 views

como fazer palestra espirita

XES Architecture Vacuum v2
17. 09. 2007
0 views

XES Architecture Vacuum v2

2 tinyos
29. 10. 2007
0 views

2 tinyos

Lecture16 overheads
21. 08. 2007
0 views

Lecture16 overheads

Hip Injuries in Athletics PartI
01. 08. 2007
0 views

Hip Injuries in Athletics PartI

jsimon irvine
29. 08. 2007
0 views

jsimon irvine

GeorgeMiley LOFAR May06
29. 08. 2007
0 views

GeorgeMiley LOFAR May06

jim brady
05. 10. 2007
0 views

jim brady

automotive invitation
24. 10. 2007
0 views

automotive invitation

microscopy
15. 10. 2007
0 views

microscopy

General Psychopathology
16. 02. 2008
0 views

General Psychopathology

The Virus of Violence
20. 02. 2008
0 views

The Virus of Violence

cindy pragma grid
17. 10. 2007
0 views

cindy pragma grid

ASOCallPresentation2 006WBSD
18. 03. 2008
0 views

ASOCallPresentation2 006WBSD

China Korea Trip Info
25. 03. 2008
0 views

China Korea Trip Info

A105 021 GalI
29. 08. 2007
0 views

A105 021 GalI

widefield yan
29. 08. 2007
0 views

widefield yan

blain cosmoskyoto
29. 08. 2007
0 views

blain cosmoskyoto

Corporate Profile November 2007
27. 03. 2008
0 views

Corporate Profile November 2007

Cal Mrtg Watkins
10. 04. 2008
0 views

Cal Mrtg Watkins

pcreek
13. 04. 2008
0 views

pcreek

7 9 kraft
29. 08. 2007
0 views

7 9 kraft

neos innovation challenge short
14. 04. 2008
0 views

neos innovation challenge short

nslab diffserv 06a
16. 04. 2008
0 views

nslab diffserv 06a

podraza medicare
17. 04. 2008
0 views

podraza medicare

Capitalizing
18. 04. 2008
0 views

Capitalizing

Meyer
22. 04. 2008
0 views

Meyer

forbes manhattan presentation
28. 04. 2008
0 views

forbes manhattan presentation

cs4811 ch09 uncertainty
17. 09. 2007
0 views

cs4811 ch09 uncertainty

Managing Tough Decisions
17. 09. 2007
0 views

Managing Tough Decisions

David Ellis powerpoint
30. 04. 2008
0 views

David Ellis powerpoint

Anesthetic Machines
02. 05. 2008
0 views

Anesthetic Machines

ADSL NTT
09. 10. 2007
0 views

ADSL NTT

ABM12006
15. 10. 2007
0 views

ABM12006

Richstone Mitchell
29. 08. 2007
0 views

Richstone Mitchell

CIP TOA and Beyond 5 29 07
03. 01. 2008
0 views

CIP TOA and Beyond 5 29 07

Thomson top panic05
18. 06. 2007
0 views

Thomson top panic05

Thesis defense rev12
18. 06. 2007
0 views

Thesis defense rev12

tftge dec 02
18. 06. 2007
0 views

tftge dec 02

Temp bone trauma slides 051012
18. 06. 2007
0 views

Temp bone trauma slides 051012

tamara
18. 06. 2007
0 views

tamara

tactical euro condor06
18. 06. 2007
0 views

tactical euro condor06

Stolarz D 1603
18. 06. 2007
0 views

Stolarz D 1603

stoc04
18. 06. 2007
0 views

stoc04

stabicp slides
18. 06. 2007
0 views

stabicp slides

Sofia Sima 2 ext new
18. 06. 2007
0 views

Sofia Sima 2 ext new

slacbaryo genesis
18. 06. 2007
0 views

slacbaryo genesis

iyef project homeless connect
31. 10. 2007
0 views

iyef project homeless connect

SOFG
18. 06. 2007
0 views

SOFG

NorthStar
13. 11. 2007
0 views

NorthStar

rickwilliams
21. 08. 2007
0 views

rickwilliams

Noah s Ark
03. 10. 2007
0 views

Noah s Ark

ambertech
19. 11. 2007
0 views

ambertech

Soc RespI SOC02
17. 09. 2007
0 views

Soc RespI SOC02

Internet Protocol Addresses
15. 06. 2007
0 views

Internet Protocol Addresses

Colour Reconnection
15. 06. 2007
0 views

Colour Reconnection

Research & Development
15. 06. 2007
0 views

Research & Development

Low Frequency Gravitational Wave
15. 06. 2007
0 views

Low Frequency Gravitational Wave

vander Marel mgct2 win
29. 08. 2007
0 views

vander Marel mgct2 win

G020514 00
17. 09. 2007
0 views

G020514 00

aas calzetti
29. 08. 2007
0 views

aas calzetti

jokes riddles
17. 09. 2007
0 views

jokes riddles

vaulttutorial
19. 09. 2007
0 views

vaulttutorial

Ch90 ExtensionsToFOPC
17. 09. 2007
0 views

Ch90 ExtensionsToFOPC

Mercurio
29. 08. 2007
0 views

Mercurio

Eric Gawiser pire galclust
29. 08. 2007
0 views

Eric Gawiser pire galclust

Eric Gawiser pire galform
29. 08. 2007
0 views

Eric Gawiser pire galform

1 Dirk Van Braeckel
23. 10. 2007
0 views

1 Dirk Van Braeckel

directors roundtable 0407
02. 10. 2007
0 views

directors roundtable 0407

MWR
01. 08. 2007
0 views

MWR

01 Singleton
17. 09. 2007
0 views

01 Singleton

astro101 2000oct
15. 11. 2007
0 views

astro101 2000oct

CCAT06 Chapman
29. 08. 2007
0 views

CCAT06 Chapman

nips06 tutorial
17. 09. 2007
0 views

nips06 tutorial

90convexpo Jeff Tobe ppt
17. 09. 2007
0 views

90convexpo Jeff Tobe ppt