Justiciability and Standing Analysis - Case Study Example

Justiciability and Standing In order for Suzy Sweatpants to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts the matters that form the basis of her complaint are required to be such that the courts have justiciability and standing over them. The doctrine of justiciability arises out of the provisions of Article III of the US Constitution. (US Constitution, Article III) Article III of the US Constitution defines and limits of inherent federal powers of the US judiciary. ( Gressman, Geller, Shapiro, Bishop and Hartnett, 916) In other words judticiability not only defines the limits of judicial power within constitutional parameters but also sets the standards by which the courts ought to refuse to exercise judicial power. ( Gressman, Geller, Shapiro, Bishop and Hartnett, 916) There are various aspects of judiciability and standing is one of the most important aspects. ( Gressman, Geller, Shapiro, Bishop and Hartnett, 916) Before Suzy Sweatpants files a suit she is required to have standing to do so. This will be the first hurdle for her to cross. It has been a long held tenet of the US Constitutional law regime that parties wishing to move the federal courts on constitutional controversies and matters are required to: “...carry the burden of establishing their standing under Article III”. (Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555 (1992)) Very broadly standing requires that the plaintiff have a vested interest in the outcome of the case. A vested interest will typically arise where the parties to the contemplated complaint are adversaries. The test for establishing standing in this regard is proof that the plaintiff has suffered an injury as a result of the matters giving rise to the complaint or is likely to suffer injury. (US v. SCRAP, 412 US 669 (1973)) The possibility of possible injury is required to be based on facts and circumstances rather than speculation. (City of Los Angeles v Lyons 461 US 94 (1983)) In Suzy Sweatpants’ case she is a director of a clothing business and as such does not bring herself into the reasonable ambit of having suffered an injury as a result of the action taken by Transportation Security Administration, a body created by Congress. Likewise Sweatpants does not provide a reasonable basis by which she will suffer an injury, in her case she alleges invasion of privacy. She does not state any facts that bring her within the scope and range of the strip search mandate at transport terminals. In the majority decision of the US Supreme Court in Frothingham v Mellon 262US 447 (1923) the US Supreme Court ruled that: “The party who invokes the power...must be able to show not only that the statute in invalid but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally...” (Frothingham v Mellon 262US 447 (1923)) Obviously Suzy Sweatpants does not have standing on the issue of injury. The courts require actual injury or imminent injury and Suzy’s complaint is founded primarily on supposition or conjecture. This is not to say that her concerns are not valid. They may be valid, but based on the authorities discussed so far, Suzy does not have sufficient grounds to establish standing as she herself has not suffered the injury complained of nor is she in imminent danger of suffering an injury. So far she has only proven that she works in the clothing industry and has not provided any proof that her complaint is any thing other than indefinite and “in common with people generally. Suzy Sweatpants is also alleging that since she pays taxes she has a valid concern that her tax dollars are paying the salaries of the TSA to purportedly illegally strip search passengers. Based on the authorities discussed above and the majority ruling in Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555 (1992) in particular, the mere fact that an individual pays taxes will not provide him or her with standing. In fact a taxpayer suit was dismissed for lack of standing under Article III of the US Constitution. (US v Richardson 418 166 (1974)) In other words Suzy Sweatpants will not have standing under the doctrine of justiciability on the grounds merely that she is a taxpayer. Standing under the doctrine of justicibility will not be established on grounds of public interest which are conceivably the only grounds upon which Suzy who is removed from the transportation industry can argue her claim. In a case involving a matter of life and death was rejected by the US Supreme Court in the case of Whitmore, 495 U.S. In this case the US Supreme Court denied an application with respect to circumventing the execution of a condemned prisoner who was not a party to the action. The Court ruled that: “...this allegation raised only the generalized interest of all citizens in a constitutional governance...and was an inadequate basis on which to grant standing.” (Whitmore v Arkansas, 495 US 149 (1990)) The cumulative impact of Suzy Sweatpant’s argument is a challenge to the power of a government agency and the propriety of the exercise of that power. The US Supreme Court ruled that such a challenge did not give the average citizen standing. For the US Supreme Court to rule generally under the justiciability principle contained in Article III on the propriety of Congressional action and the action of government agency would be an affront to the democratic notion of the separation of powers. (Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555 (1992)) The court in Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife went on to rule that the majority decision in Laird v Tatum 408 US 1 (1952) was good law. The court held in Laird v Tatum 408 US 1 (1952) that: “When Congress passes an Act empowering administrative agencies to carry on governmental activities, the power of those agencies is circumscribed by the authority granted. This permits the courts to participate in law enforcement entrusted to administrative bodies only to the extend necessary to protect justiciable individual rights against administrative action fairly beyond the granted powers....This is very far from assuming that the courts are charged more than administrators or legislators with the protection of the rights of the people.” (Laird v Tatum 408 US 1 (1952)) Based on the above authorities, in order for the courts to assume jurisdiction over Suzy’s complaint she will have to prove that she has suffered an injury or is in imminent danger of suffering an injury. Based on the facts stated, Suzy has not suffered invasion of privacy as a result of the administrative action and cannot state with any degree of certainty that she will suffer any such injury. In other words her complaint involves an indefinite concern that impacts the public interest at large. The US Supreme Court has held that it is not permitted by the ambit of Article III to regulate executive or legislative powers. Its job is to protect individual rights and nothing more. Bibliography City of Los Angeles v Lyons 461 US 94 (1983) Frothingham v Mellon 262US 447 (1923) Gressman, Eugene; Geller, Kenneth; Shapiro, Stephen; Bishop, Timothy and Hartnett, Edward. Supreme Court Practice : For Practice in the Supreme Court of the United States. BNA Books, 2007. Laird v Tatum 408 US 1 (1952) Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555 (1992) US v. SCRAP, 412 US 669 (1973)) US v Richardson 418 166 (1974) US Constitution Whitmore v Arkansas, 495 US 149 (1990) Read More