CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Fall 2006, W.B. Fisch

Assignment #4

2. Standing to Assert the Rights of Third Parties

• CRAIG V. BOREN, p. 74 (1976).
• What governmental act is being challenged, and whose constitutional rights are alleged to have been violated?
• Who were the original plaintiffs? Did they have standing at the time the action was brought? Why is the standing of the saloonkeeper at issue now?
• Suppose that the only original plaintiff had been a middle-aged male author of anti-feminism tracts, and the defendant had made no objection at trial. On appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment for the defendant, could the Supreme Court properly treat the standing objection as waived?
• Did the Court treat the standing issue as having been waived in this case?
• What other basis for confirming the saloonkeeper's standing did the Court have?
• individualized and concrete injury traceable to the alleged wrong?
• Actual satisfaction with the quality of her advocacy up to this point -- does it make sense to give weight to that?
• Necessity in order to protect the true rightsholders -- why can't they protect themselves?

3. Taxpayer and Citizen Standing

• Why do citizens and taxpayers as such ordinarily lack standing to challenge government acts which violate constitutional limitations? (Frothingham ; Schlesinger; Richardson)
• What is special about the Establishment Clause as a limitation on federal expenditures? (Flast)
• LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, p. 76 (1992).
• What act is being challenged, and on what ground? Is it a constitutional claim?
• Who are the plaintiffs? Can they satisfy traditional standing requirements?
• What injury have they suffered? Is it sufficiently concrete?
• Is it remediable by the declaration and injunction sought?
• On what other basis do they claim to have standing?
• RAINES V. BYRD, p. 81 (1997)
•   What act is being challenged, and on what ground?
•   Who are the plaintiffs, and how would they be injured by the Act?
•   Would these plaintiffs suffer injury that other members of Congress would not?
•   Should we allow dissenting legislators to challenge a law they voted against?
• F.E.C. v. Akins,  p. 87 (1998)
• what act is being challenged, and on what ground?
• who are the plaintiffs, and how were they injured by the challenged act?
• has Congress authorized standing for these plaintiffs?  should that matter in this case?
• can plaintiffs satisfy traditional standing requirements?
• is this case distinguishable from Lujan?