CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DEBATE CYCLE #2

STATE OF SETONIA (PETITIONER) V.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (RESPONDENT)

THE DOCTRINE OF STANDING

CASE LAW (1)• Lujan, Secretary of the Interior v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)–

Background Info The conservation group, Defenders of Wildlife, challenged the constitutionality of the federal

government’s application of the Endangered Species Act of 1972. At issue was the federal government’s funding of development projects outside the United

States that Defenders of Wildlife believed would be harmful to endangered species. The government declared that the Endangered Species Act did not apply to projects outside the US, prompting the conservation group to sue.

A federal Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the group’s challenge. The federal government then appealed the case to the Supreme Court, citing that the group did not have standing to sue.

In the majority opinion, Justice Scalia outlines the fundamental principles of standing that were referenced in the previous video, which are critical to our understanding of the more complex issues in this debate cycle.

THE EXCEPTIONS• Parens Patriae (“parent of the nation”)—When the

state is seeking standing as a litigant on behalf of it’s aggrieved citizens. This means that there are many directly harmed parties and that they are all being represented by the state. This special type of standing is used when the state is acting as the protector of its citizens.

• Special Solicitude—When a state has a quasi-sovereign, or semi-autonomous interest in a particular case. Here the state is representing its own interests, not its citizens. This special interest refers to issues that states could solve on their own if not for being part of a larger central government.

CASE LAW (2)• Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)—

Background Info The case concerned § 202 A (1) of the Clean Air Act, which requires the Environment Protection

Agency (EPA) to set emission standards for “any air pollutant” from motor vehicles which in their judgement “cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

In 2003, the EPA declared that it lacked authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide for climate change purposes and even if it did, it would not set emissions standards for vehicles.

Several states, cities, and environmental groups represented by the state of Massachusetts, filed suit against the EPA to compel them to regulate motor vehicle emissions.

A federal appeals court upheld the EPA’s decision to leave emissions unregulated, however there was considerable disagreement among the judges as to whether the petitioners had standing to sue.

The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted cert and addressed the question of whether the petitioners had standing in court. Critical to the majority opinion’s reasoning was the concept of special solicitude.

MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA—STAR WARS STYLE

CASE LAW (3)• State of Texas v. United States of America (2015)– Background Info Concerns the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) implementation of

the “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents” (DAPA) and its expansion of “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) program. These programs provide a legal presence (not full legal status) for over four million individuals who are in the country illegally, enabling them to obtain a variety of state and federal benefits.

In response to these expansions, the state of Texas and 25 other states sued the federal government in the District Court of Southern Texas asking the court to enjoin (prohibit) the implementation of the expansions.

Central to this suit is the question of standing. Here the district judge addresses Texas’s claims through several avenues, particularly parens patriae and special solicitude.

CASE LAW (4)• Native Village of Kivalina, and the City of Kivalina v. Exxon Mobil

Coorporation (2008)—Background Info The Native Village of Kivalina is the governing body of an eskimo village of

approximately 400 people. They alleged that as a result of global warming, the Artic Sea ice, which protects the Kivalina coast from winter storms, had eroded and required relocation of their residents.

As a result, they sought damages from twenty-four oil, energy, and utility companies, including Exxon Mobil, based on their alleged contribution to global warming.

The village contended that the relaxed standing requirements of special solicitude should apply to them, which the district judge addressed in her opinion.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES “Constitution Check: Why all the interest in Article III

‘standing’?”, Lyle Denniston. http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/11/constitution-check-

why-all-the-interest-in-article-iii-standing/

THE JUSTICIABILITY SONG