Constitutional Standing Requirements

1. Constitutional Standing Requirements • Recall in Data Processing that SCT imposed an initial “injury-in-fact” requirement re P’s standing • But said Ps easily met it • This was a constitutional standing requirement • As noted earlier, constitutional standing is a threshold requirement that all litigants in federal court must meet (it’s an aspect of Art. III) • It is also an area of law that is extremely complex, fact-bound and inherently unstable

2. Constitutional Standing – 3 basic requirements (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife) • Injury-in-Fact – concrete and particularized invasion of legally protected interest • Injury must be fairly traceable to defendant’s conduct – need a causal connection between injury complained of & D’s behavior • Injury must be one that can be redressed in court – must be likely that a favorable court decision will help P

3. Constitutional Standing - Injury-in-Fact • Injury-in-fact - plaintiff must show she has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury personal to her. • What kinds of injuries suffice? • Injuries to common law, constitutional or statutory rights • Aesthetic, environmental, recreational harms and competitive economic harms • Lujan (p. 808) – insufficient to allege injury to a “cognizable interest” – i.e. potential diminution of endangered species that one wants to observe – P’s must show they are among the persons actually suffering injury or likely to suffer injury • I.e. - P’s must (1) use the area affected or (2) use such animals in their work on a regular basis or (3) at least be able to show that they are about to visit an area where there are endangered species to observe

4. Constitutional Standing - Causation • Injury must be fairly traceable to D’s conduct – need a causal connection between injury complained of & D’s behavior • Most common reason for courts to find lack of causal nexus: • Intervening independent actions of others are as likely a cause of the harm as is D. • Example: Parents sued IRS for inadequately implementing federal law denying tax benefits to racially discriminatory private schools. Their children attended public schools and they claimed that their children were injured by failing to receive a racially integrated education due to white students attending private schools illegally receiving tax benefits. • SCT said, injury might be real but couldn’t show that receipt of tax benefit was the cause of it. Even if IRS adequately enforced the provision, students still might attend private school. Allen v. Wright, 468 US 737 (1984)

5. Constitutional Standing - Redressability • Injury must be redressable in court – can the injury complained of be redressed by a favorable court decision? • Often this is just redundant of causation – if agency action caused the injury, then court can likely redress it. So redressability is RARELY dispositive of the case • Lujan opinion held that the injury alleged (destruction to foreign wildlife habitat) could not be redressed w/ court action because not all relevant actors obliged to consult re habitat harm were parties to the suit • Is it plausible to assume that gov’t actors w/ knowledge of a court order (even if not bound), and who knew they were req’d to consult by statute, wouldn’t perform that obligation? • Is it more plausible that funding agencies’ roles in foreign habitat maintenance is so minimal that that cutting off funds (if no consultation) will have an effect on endangered species? • Isn’t this really a causation question?

6. Some clean-up issues re injury-in-fact Procedural injury Lujan held that mere violation of procedural reqm’tsdid not alone confer standing on P’s Violation of reqm’tto consult w/ other agencies was more like an abstract, general grievance with the government’s behavior But P’s have standing if can show violation of procedural reqm’t would injure another concrete interest I.e., failure to follow procedures in licensing hearing I.e., failure to issue environmental impact statement (EIS) before building a federal dam

7. More clean-up issues & injury-in-fact Widely shared injuries – e.g., global warming If everybody suffers from this injury, does that mean nobody can sue since Lujan requires that an injury be “particularized” and “personal”? Massachusetts v. EPA: State of Mass. had standing to sue re EPA’s failure to enact greenhouse gas regs. Though global warming affects everyone, Mass. alleged injury to itself (rising oceans). Note – Court also intimated that states have an easier time establishing standing

8. Associational (representational) standing Organizations are often P’s in actions against agencies Organizations can sue in their own right if gov’t action injuries them “as organizations” Organizations can also bring lawsuits on behalf of their members. Most of the cases in this section involve such suits. 3 conditions must be met A member satisfies constitutional standing Purpose of the organization is relevant to the lawsuit The lawsuit seeks injunctive/declaratory relief

9. Can Congress affect standing by statute? Congress often has special review “standing” statutes. Example: Endangered Species Act: “Any person may commence a civil suit on his own behalf” to enjoin violations of the ESA. Do such provisions give P’s special standing regardless of their lack of constitutional standing? NO. Lujan makes clear that P’s must have constitutional standing in order to file suit. Standing statutes do not modify constitutional requirements BUT - they do eliminate prudential standing limitations (i.e., judge-made rules limiting standing Example: (the 3rd requirement in associational standing of not suing for damages) AND – those statutes can help one figure out who is supposed to be w/in the “zone of interests” for APA standing purposes