Presentation on theme: "Review Injury in fact Zone of injury Redressiblity."— Presentation transcript:
Review Injury in fact Zone of injury Redressiblity
Hospitals and Charitable Care Economic incentives to provide care to the poor Hill-Burton IRS regulations on non-profit status State exemptions from property and other taxes, based on IRS determinations What if the IRS or the state does not try to enforce these rules? What is the impact of the community on tax exemption?
Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 US 26 (1976) Can a citizens organization qualify for standing to challenge an IRS policy that they claim fails to require adequate amounts of charitable care? The members argued that they were in the zone of interest and had suffered individual injury because they have been denied charitable care.
What is the Nexus with the IRS Policy? The majority opinion found that there was no direct link between the hospital decision to deny care in an individual case and the IRS policy. Plaintiffs failed to show that the decision was based solely on tax considerations and that it would be different if the IRS policy was changed Justice Brennan was worried that by resting the claim on injury in fact that Congress could not change the result
Duke Power v. CESG, 438 US 59 (1978) Plaintiffs lives near an atomic power plant They claimed that the Price-Anderson Act unconstitutionally denied them common law tort remedies The court found that their being exposed to the thermal pollution and the aesthetic aspects of the plant constituted injury in fact They lost anyway - no constitutional right to a tort remedy
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, Round II Plaintiffs wanted to change the policy of federal agencies that supported programs in foreign countries that harmed endangered animals They argued that these programs should have to be reviewed by EPA for compliance with the endangered species act The court found that forcing this review would not assure that the US would not fund the project, and the even if the US pulled out, whether the project would stop
Steel Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 US 83 (1998) This arises under the law that requires industries to provide information to the community about toxic chemicals they use The company failed to provide info in the past, but is now in compliance The plaintiffs sue under the jurisdiction granted by the statute for compensation for private parties injured by industries regulated by the statute
Is there a Redressible Injury? The act provided for fines to be paid to the government, but since it was not a private attorney general provision, the plaintiffs could not collect these The plaintiffs argued that should be paid for the cost of the litigation, but the court said that would be bootstrapping. Other damages were based on deterring future bad conduct, but there was no claim of a continuing violation The concurrence argued that punishment could be considered compensation, but still found that these plaintiffs did not state a redressible injury.
Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) Environmental plaintiffs who suffered injury in fact from mercury discharges into a river had standing to seek civil penalties that would be paid to the U.S. treasury. Unlike Steel Company, the plaintiffs were seeking to deter probable future misconduct and the payment of civil penalties would be likely to deter future violations. The dissent argued that the deterrent came from the availability of civil penalties, not their imposition. The lawyering difference was making the case that the violations were part of a long term problem, not a single infraction
Why is Redressibility a Jurisprudential Problem? Is the issue whether the plaintiff can show a specific, individualized injury? In Laidlaw, specific plaintiffs claimed they were harmed by the damage to river In Eastern Kentucky, the plaintiffs were attacking a general policy, not a specific revenue ruling against a specific hospital Should the court be looking harder at the Congressional policy behind the act? (Breyer)
In FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) FEC refused to treat the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as a "political committee" that is regulated under the Act Akins filed a complaint with the FEC but the complaint was dismissed. The statute allowed "any person" who believes a violation of the Act has occurred to file a complaint before the Commission and further allowed "any person aggrieved" by a Commission decision dismissing a complaint to seek judicial review of the dismissal.
Is Akin's Claim Redressible? What is the injury? Akins was deprived of information to which he is entitled by statute and which he will use to evaluate candidates for public office. The Court held that Akins had standing to challenge the FEC decision. This was based on the specific statutory purpose of providing this info and the specific injury to Akins, even though his injury was no different than that of other voters.
Thought Question What is really being addressed by allowing standing for procedural errors? What is the injury when there is failure to file an environmental impact statement? Why don't plaintiffs have to show that the result would have been different? Is this like other due process claims?
Congressional Standing What happened in Raines v. Byrd (1997)? Congressmen wanted to contest the line item veto Court said no direct interest, so no standing What is another way the court could have avoided deciding this case? Political question
Qui Tam Actions Citizens stand in for the US Assert the claim of the US Collect a bounty
Review of Standing Injury in fact Zone of Interest Congressional grant of interest Injury must be particularized Causation Redressiblity
Associational Standing At least on member must have standing Must be consistent with the goals of the organization Must not require specific damage calculations or facts