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