Congress can authorize a challenge to a law and confer standing on parties

Congress can authorize a challenge to a law and

This preview shows page 8 - 11 out of 105 pages.

Congress can authorize a challenge to a law and confer standing on parties; litigant can be vested with procedural right if possibility that the requested relief will prompt the injury causing party to reconsider the decision allegedly harmed the litigant 8
Image of page 8
Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife (US 1992) (38): held: no standing because no concrete injury or redressability -> challenge to rule by secretary of interior of EPA to render regulation applicable to US or high seas by P org for wildlife preservation o 1) P suit emanates from statutes that control Secretary – D counters that limits on how to sue him because connection to animals too speculative and strained o Hypo: even if P says that def going to see the animals next week still speculative that will SEE animal in first place; hypo: if lived in country affected still no standing since Congress passed law with intent to protect US citizens so not in zone of interest o 2) Causation: problems of traceability; any change of the agency will not affect what this separate funding agency doing o 3) Redressability: Congress created COA that “every person” in US right to sue for alleged violation of Endangered Species Act = too generalized Hypo: even if made to “animal viewing hobbyists” Kennedy concur would be nervous about that one’s connection with elephants in Sri Lanka just because you like to look at puppies; but at least better than every person language o Concur: Congress must identify the injury seeks to redress and relate injury to class of persons entitled to bring suit Mass v EPA (US 2007) (44): global temp rise and concentration of CO2 in air; P state of mass sued EPA alleging they abdicated responsibility to regulate emissions o 1) Injury: climate change serious, unchallenged by D that global sea levels in Mass rose and in capacity as landowner Mass state property interest Uses GA case to strengthen its position Different if private landowner sued? Court lenient on the state but both are landowners, even according to the court the state is landowner; But as matter of policy then better adversary when the state with stronger concern and interest in issue o 2) Causation: rejects EPA protest that their change would be too small because just because small not mean cannot be changed, agencies usually not change in massive increments anyways, and reducing care emissions not small step Just because others do does not mean cannot slow ourselves Prudential standing : 1) Third party standing : must exert legal right and not rest on interest of 3 rd parties a. Exceptions more likely when close relationship and great unavoidable hindrance to assertion of right: b. Craig : seller able to bring suit on state law imposing higher age threshold for male than female buyers since they has interchangeable economic interest 2) Generalize grievance: cannot have abstract Qs of wide public significance a. Taxpayers issue: cannot be one of millions complaining on behalf of all as general rule (so typically no standing even when injured since too generalized) 9
Image of page 9
b.
Image of page 10
Image of page 11

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 105 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes