1 / 13

Justiciability – Part II (Standing) Jan. 25, 2006

Justiciability – Part II (Standing) Jan. 25, 2006. UnderStanding Standing. Article III courts have limited jurisdiction SoP and Federalism reasons Subject matter limits 9 heads of SMJ in Art. III, §2, ¶ 1 Case & Controversy (types of disputes) These are the justiciability doctrines

Gabriel
Download Presentation

Justiciability – Part II (Standing) Jan. 25, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Justiciability – Part II (Standing) Jan. 25, 2006

  2. UnderStanding Standing • Article III courts have limited jurisdiction • SoP and Federalism reasons • Subject matter limits • 9 heads of SMJ in Art. III, §2, ¶ 1 • Case & Controversy (types of disputes) • These are the justiciability doctrines • Standing • Ripeness • Mootness • Political Question • Const. limits & rules of prudential self-restraint Con Law I - Manheim

  3. Standing • Theory • Federal courts can exercise judicial power only in cases and controversies of an "adversarial nature" • To be adversarial, litigants must be in particular relationship with one another such that they have personal stake in outcome of case • Judicial power is the power to decide cases. If a federal court is unable to give effective relief, then it is not deciding a case, but merely rendering an advisory opinion. Con Law I - Manheim

  4. Standing Elements • Discrete and Palpable Injury • Caused by Defendant's (alleged) Action • Remediable by Court • Plaintiff's personal rights at stake Con Law I - Manheim

  5. Warth v. Seldin (1975) • Claim: • Exclusionary zoning ordinance discriminates on the basis of race: violating equal protection • Low density zoning keeps out multi-family units and moderately-priced housing • Low- and moderate-income households cannot afford to live in Penfield • Penfield remains mostly affluent and • Mostly white • Plus other constitutional claims not relevant here Con Law I - Manheim

  6. Warth v. Seldin (1975) • Each plaintiff must have standing on each claim (cause of action) brought. • Examine each plaintiff group separately • Assume that all facts can be proven as alleged Con Law I - Manheim

  7. Ps who want to live in Penfield • 1. Can they show a discrete and palpable injury? • Inability to live in town; race/wealth exclusion • 2. Can they show the injury was caused by the (allegedly) illegal acts of the City? • Absent the zoning, would they be able to live in Penfield? • Court says the line of causation is broken by intervening acts of 3rd parties (contractors) Con Law I - Manheim

  8. Rochester Taxpayers • What is their discrete & palpable injury? • Higher taxes to support subsidized housing • Taxpayer standing generally disfavored • Does that injury flow from actions of Ds? • Again, intervening decisions of 3rd parties (contractors) seem to be the proximate cause of the injury Con Law I - Manheim

  9. Associational Standing • Associations have standing if: • Injured in their own capacity, as separate entity • E.g., affecting property owned by the association • Or if any of their members has standing • and the members’ injury is germane to the purposes of the association; I.e., one of the goals of the association is to advance the interests of its members in precisely the way they’ve been injured • Nature of case does not require participation of the individual members • E.g., common relief (injunction) vs separate relief Con Law I - Manheim

  10. Metro Act • Association of Penfield residents who want to live in an integrated community • Is that an injury in fact? • Is it caused by City’s actions? • Can it be remedied by judicial decree? • Are Ps asserting their own rights? • Or the rights of non-residents who are being discriminated against? Con Law I - Manheim

  11. Jus tertii standing • Compare Warth to Trafficante v. Metro Life • Examine the claim brought in respective cases • Warth: Equal Protection • Trafficante: Civil Rights Act • Zone of interest • What is it? • Who defines it? Con Law I - Manheim

  12. Home Builders (Contractors) • What is their discrete and palpable injury? • Is it caused by the unlawful exclusionary zoning practices of Penfield? • Is this a current and ongoing injury? • Does Home Builders have permits pending or current plans to build? • If not, the injury is conjectural, not concrete • Compare Arlington Heights v Metro Housing (1977) • Note: injunction (equitable relief) is prospective • Requires ongoing or imminent injury • Compare damages, retroactive relief Con Law I - Manheim

  13. Dissents • Douglas: • Technical/rigid rules of standing create a barrier to federal courts • Brennan: • Court’s standing analysis is result oriented • Nominally done without regard to merits of case • But belies a hostility to the claims/parties • Too high a burden required at this stage of case Con Law I - Manheim

More Related