causation:
-redressibility– can’t sue if no remedy
-Steel Co. (1998): No standing to sue for failure to file reports when company responds by filing reports
-complaint is past violation not ongoing
-Lyons (1983): No standing to sue for injunctive relief on chokeholds because can’t show you’re likely to be subject to policy again
-not moot unless behavior is not reasonably likely to occur (Laidlaw)
-also not moot if “capable of repetition yet evading review” (Doe v. Sullivan)
-within zone of interests
-interests among those arguably to be protected by statute; intent irrelevant (See Nat. Credit Union)
-JP – zone of interests basically dropped out b/c anytime affected by statute satisfies interests (See Clarke v. Securities Indus. Assoc. (1987) – association of securities dealers has standing to challenge authority of comptroller to permit banks to sell brokerage services – not really in banking statute)
-But See Air Courier (1991) – postal workers union doesn’t have standing to challenge decision to suspend postal service monopoly; statute designed to protect postal revenues, not jobs
-So here need causal relationship b/w illegality and injury
-ADAPSO (1970): Data process company has standing to challenge ruling by comptroller that banks can sell data processing services
-Need injury and within zone of interests protected by statute – prudential standard
-need to be regulated party or beneficiary of statute
-Nat. Credit Union (1998): union had standing to challenge interpretation of act to permit unions to be composed of multiple unrelated employee groups
-Test is not whether Congress specifically intended to benefit P
-Qs are (1) what are the interests arguably to be protected by statute? 2) is P’s interests among them?
-Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw (2000) (standing to bring suit to enforce compliance with pollution discharge provisions)
-must show that wrongful behavior could not be reasonably expected to occur to be moot
-so voluntary cessation is not enough
orelevant injury is to P
-so didn’t matter that no injury to environment
-Taxpayer standing doesn’t really exist except for establishment cases (See Flast – standing to challenge tax support of religious schools)
-U.S. v. Richardson (1974): taxpayer challenging non-publication of CIA budget did not have standing ? just a generalized grievance no particular harm
-in cases like this (unlike Sierra Club) no standing means non-reviewability
-different under FOIA – Congress gave right & can get judicial review for anyone aggrieved
-Associational Standing (Hunt test)
-Test – just need members to have an interest so association can pursue interests on their behalf
-so long as case not too particularized (requires individualized members) can bring it
-associations may have more competence and less vulnerable to coercion
-Why weaker requirements to claim officials’ actions illegal?
-public interest in government not behaving illegally
-liberty interests not to allow officials to do thing they’re not authorized to do