List of United States Supreme Court cases involving standing

Last updated

A number of United States Supreme Court opinions have been important for their development of the doctrine of legal standing in the context of federal law in the United States. Some of those opinions include:

CaseYear DecidedHoldingVoting
Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857Held that people of African ancestry (whether free or not) were not United States Citizens, and therefore lacked standing to sue. This ruling stood as precedent until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.7–2
Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. 1907States, as quasi-sovereigns, have parens patriae standing to sue for environmental harms, in this case fumes from copper mining. [1] 9–0
Fairchild v. Hughes 1922Held that a New York resident (whose state had women's suffrage) lacked any particularized standing to challenge alleged state-level of the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This was a landmark case, prior to this, private citizens were permitted to litigate public rights.9–0
Frothingham v. Mellon 1923Held that the generalized injury of higher taxation overall was insufficient to give a taxpayer standing to challenge federal spending. Considered the genesis of the doctrine of standing. [2] 9–0
Poe v. Ullman 1961Found a lack of standing to challenge a law banning contraceptives as it had never been enforced, and that the controversy was not yet ripe. The same law was successfully challenged four years later in Griswold v. Connecticut.5–4
Baker v. Carr 1962Held that voters have standing to litigate when their Constitutional Right to vote in the United States is infringed.7–2
Epperson v. Arkansas 1968In contrast to Poe, the court did recognize standing in a case for overturning an unenforced Arkansas state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution. [3] 9–0
Flast v. Cohen 1968Clarified that Frothingham did not deny all taxpayer lawsuits, identified the Flast test, which gives standing to taxpayers challenging laws are based on the Congressional power to tax and spend, and if the challenged law can be shown to exceed any Constitutional limitations on that power. [4] 8–1
Sierra Club v. Morton 1972Held that an environmental group, as a corporate entity, did not by itself have standing to challenge a development permit, but that such a group could sue on behalf of any of its members if those members had, themselves, a particularized interest. [5] 4–3
United States v. SCRAP 1973Held that SCRAP, despite alleging quite attenuated injuries to the local environment due to a proposed rail freight increase on recyclable materials, did assert a particularized harm by showing that its members made use of those areas, and thus enjoyed standing to sue under the principles enunciated in Sierra Club. [6] 8–0
DeFunis v. Odegaard 1974Held that a student, who had challenged a school's racially discriminatory admissions standards, but who had been allowed to attend college while the case proceeded, lacked standing due to mootness.5–4
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State 1982Denied standing to Americans United on the grounds that the conditional gift of surplus federal property to a religious college was the result of an Executive Branch action under Article IV rather than a Congressional action taken under the Tax and Spending Clause, and therefore was not covered under the Flast test. [7] 5–4
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman 1983Held that an organization may sue in its own right if it has been directly injured, for example through a "drain on the organization's resources", and that so-called "testers", individuals who sought to determine if a company was in violation of the law, may have standing in their own right. [8] 9–0 [9]
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons 1983Held that a plaintiff had standing to sue for damages from being subjected to a chokehold that was allowed under Los Angeles Police Department policy, but did not have standing to sue for an injunction against the chokehold policy itself because the plaintiff could not show a "real and immediate threat" that he would be subjected to the same policy in the future. [10] The Court clarified that courts must find standing for different forms of relief individually. [11] 5–4
Allen v. Wright 1984Held that a group of African-American parent plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge what they saw as a lack of enforcement of restrictions by the Internal Revenue Service on certain private school tax exemptions, as the plaintiff parents' children had never applied, and had no plans to apply to those schools.5–3
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin 1991
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 1992Held that some environmental organizations lacked standing under the Endangered Species Act, and that such a plaintiff must have suffered a tangible, particular harm.7–2
Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Jacksonville 1993
Raines v. Byrd 1997Individual Congressmembers lack the particularized interest required for standing for issues affecting the entire Congress, in this case the Line Item Veto Act of 1996.7–2
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno 2006Held that state taxpayers do not have standing to challenge to state tax laws in federal court.9–0
Massachusetts v. EPA 2007States have standing to sue the EPA to enforce their views of federal law, in this case, the view that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Cited Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. as precedent.5–4
Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation 2007
Bond v. United States 2011Held that plaintiff had standing to argue that a federal law enforcing the Chemical Weapons Convention in this instance intruded on state police powers. (On the merits, Bond's claim was later rejected.)9–0
Hollingsworth v. Perry 2013Held that proponents of a California ballot initiative against gay marriage did not have standing to defend the law in court after the governor and attorney general refused to do so; The decision had the effect of legalizing gay marriage in California5–4
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins 2016Held that there was a distinction between the "concrete" and "particularized" requirements for the "injury in fact" element of the standing test, but remanded without deciding the standing question. [12] 6–2
Thole v. US Bank 2020Statutory 'cause of action to sue' does not satisfy Article III standing requirements; plaintiffs must have suffered concrete and particularized injury.5–4
Carney v. Adams 2020In a case challenging the legality of a law limiting who can apply for judicial vacancies, a plaintiff did not have Article III standing because he failed to show that he was "able and ready" to apply for a judicial vacancy and thus did not suffer personal, concrete, and imminent injury.8–0
Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski 2021 Nominal damages satisfy Article III's requirement of redressability8–1
California v. Texas 2021States and individuals have no Article III standing to block a federal individual mandate of $0 because there is no penalty7–2
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez 2021Only plaintiffs concretely harmed by a defendant's statutory violation have Article III standing to seek damages against that private defendant in federal court5–4

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment limiting government restriction of civil rights

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that: regulate an establishment of religion; prohibit the free exercise of religion; abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1868 amendment addressing citizenship rights and civil and political liberties

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Paul Stevens</span> United States Supreme Court justice from 1975 to 2010

John Paul Stevens was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1975 to 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the second-oldest justice in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court and the third-longest-serving justice. At the time of his death in 2019 at age 99, he was the longest-lived Supreme Court justice ever. His long tenure saw him write for the Court on most issues of American law, including civil liberties, the death penalty, government action, and intellectual property. Despite being a registered Republican who throughout his life identified as a conservative, Stevens was considered to have been on the liberal side of the Court at the time of his retirement.

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), often referred to as the McCain–Feingold Act.

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the law regarding standing to sue and mootness.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision, handed down on June 12, 1992, that heightened standing requirements under Article III of the United States Constitution. It is "one of the most influential cases in modern environmental standing jurisprudence." Lily Henning of the Legal Times stated that:

United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the long-standing male-only admission policy of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in a 7–1 decision. Justice Clarence Thomas, whose son was enrolled at the university at the time, recused himself.

Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts, and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. The Supreme Court heard the case on February 21, 2006, and issued a decision on June 19, 2006.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5–4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Massachusetts, along with eleven other states and several cities of the United States, represented by James Milkey, brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represented by Gregory G. Garre to force the federal agency to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that pollute the environment and contribute to climate change.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was only intended for state militias.

United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669 (1973), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the members of SCRAP—five law students from the George Washington University Law School—had standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution to challenge a nationwide railroad freight rate increase approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). SCRAP was the first full-court consideration of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Court also reversed the lower court decision that an injunction should be issued at the suspension stage of the ICC rate proceeding. The standing decision has retained its place as the high mark in the Court's standing jurisprudence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William Rehnquist</span> Chief Justice of the United States from 1986 to 2005

William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American attorney and jurist who served on the U.S. Supreme Court for 33 years. Rehnquist was an associate justice from 1972 to 1986 and the 16th chief justice from 1986 until his death in 2005. Considered a staunch conservative, Rehnquist favored a conception of federalism that emphasized the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers to the states. Under this view of federalism, the Court, for the first time since the 1930s struck down an act of Congress as exceeding its power under the Commerce Clause.

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the plaintiff, Adolph Lyons, lacked standing to challenge the city police department's use of chokeholds.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 566 U.S. 120 (2012), also known as Sackett I, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court ruled that because the Environmental Protection Agency's orders constitute "final agency action" under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal courts may hear appeals from its orders.

Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126 (1922), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a general citizen, in a state that already had women's suffrage, lacked standing to challenge the validity of the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment. A companion case, Leser v. Garnett, upheld the ratification.

Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900), is a United States Supreme Court decision which addressed two questions relating to the Due Process Clause. First, whether Utah's practice of allowing prosecutors to directly file criminal charges without a grand jury were consistent with due process, and second, whether Utah's use of eight jurors instead of twelve in "courts of general jurisdiction" were constitutional.

Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a Massachusetts law setting a mandatory retirement age of 50 for police officers was Constitutionally permissible.

United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court case establishing precedent regarding the limits of free exercise of religious conscience by employers.

American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 569 U.S. 641 (2013), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that certain regulations imposed by City of Los Angeles on trucking companies were preempted by federal law. In 2006 the Board of Harbor Commissioners for Los Angeles, California adopted an environmental protection plan that included an effort called Clean Truck Program (CTP). The stated goal of the program is to "reduce negative impacts that port [trucking] inflicts on the local community." The implementation of this program began in 2007 and required trucking companies to comply with various requirements relating to maintenance of trucks, employment of drivers, and trucking operations. The American Trucking Associations believed some of the regulations were in violation of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) and filed suit. Litigation eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the Court held that two of the requirements of the CTP were in violation of the FAAAA.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), also known as Sackett II, was a United States Supreme Court case related to the scope of the Clean Water Act.

References

  1. ↑ DeLeo, Jr, John D (March 8, 2008). Administrative Law. Cengage Learning. pp. 449–. ISBN   9781401858773 . Retrieved February 2, 2013.
  2. ↑ Winter, Steven L. (1988). "The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance". Stanford Law Review . 40 (6): 1371–1516. doi:10.2307/1228780. JSTOR   1228780.
  3. ↑ Emanuel, Steven; Emanuel, Lazar (October 14, 2008). Constitutional Law. Aspen Publishers Online. pp. 724–. ISBN   9780735570498 . Retrieved February 2, 2013.
  4. ↑ Shultz, David (January 1, 2005). The Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court. Infobase Publishing. pp. 167–. ISBN   9780816067398 . Retrieved February 2, 2013.
  5. ↑ Yost, Nicholas C.; Institute, Environmental Law (March 1, 2003). Nepa Deskbook. Environmental Law Institute. pp. 22–. ISBN   9781585760565 . Retrieved February 2, 2013.
  6. ↑ "United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669 (1973)". Justia Law. Retrieved November 5, 2023.
  7. ↑ "Valley Forge Coll. v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464, 485 (1982)". Justia Law. Retrieved November 5, 2023.
  8. ↑ Summary from the National Association of Realtors
  9. ↑ "Havens Realty Corporation v. Coleman". Oyez. Retrieved March 5, 2017.
  10. ↑ "City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105 (1983)". Justia Law. Retrieved November 5, 2023.
  11. ↑ "City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111–13 (1983)". Justia Law. Retrieved November 5, 2023.
  12. ↑ "Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 334 (2016)". Justia Law. Retrieved November 5, 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.