Constitutional Law Prof Blog

District Court Rejects Trump Bid to Remove Hush Money Case to Federal Court

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) earlier this week rejected Donald Trump's motion to remove his New York state hush-money case to federal court. Trump filed a notice of appeal last night.

This latest episode arose when Trump filed his second motion to remove last week, arguing that the New York courts were biased against him and that he's immune under Trump v. United States.

The court rejected both arguments. As to bias, the court said that it lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally bars lower federal courts from reviewing state court decisions. As to immunity, the court wrote, "Nothing in the Supreme Court's opinion affects my previous conclusion that the hush money payments were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority."

Trump appealed to the Second Circuit. But unless something weird happens, he'll lose, and his state case will proceed.

As to his state case, sentencing is scheduled for September 18. Trump moved to push it back, however, and also moved to dismiss the case in light of Trump v. United States. Judge Merchan, the state trial judge, said that he'd rule on Trump's immunity motion by September 16. If he denies the motion, as expected, and keeps the sentencing date in place, Trump will be sentenced on September 18. He can then appeal through the state courts and, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming immunity.

SCOTUS Says Docs, Orgs Lack Standing to Challenge Mifepristone

The Supreme Court ruled today in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine that doctors and organizations lack standing to challenge FDA's relaxation of regulations on the use of Mifeprex, the brand-name for mifepristone--the second of a two-drug regime to end pregnancies. The ruling means that mifepristone can stay on the market, along with the FDA's actions that make it more easily accessible.

FDA originally approved Mifeprex in 2000, with certain restrictions on its use. FDA relaxed those restrictions in 2016 and again in 2021--allowing the drug's use up to 10 weeks of pregnancy, allowing healthcare providers other than doctors to prescribe it, requiring just one in-person visit, and, in 2021, dropping the in-person visit requirement entirely.

A group of pro-life doctors and organizations sued FDA, arguing that the Agency improperly approved the drug and relaxed the standards for its use. As their basis for standing, the doctors claimed that FDA's actions would cause patients to suffer harms from using the drug, and that the doctors would have to treat them. The organizations said that they had to divert resources to provide their members with safety information about the drug.

The Court ruled today that those plaintiffs lacked standing. The Court said that the doctors lacked standing on the groud that FDA's actions caused conscience injuries to them. The Court noted that doctors could avoid "conscience injuries" by declining "to perform or assist" an abortion under federal conscience laws. It wrote that the doctors lacked standing on the ground that the doctors would have to divert their time and efforts with other patients in order to serve patients who suffered harm from mifepristone, because the causal link between FDA's actions and this "harm" was too attenuated. The court said that the organizations lacked standing in their own right on the ground that they had to divert resources, because "an organization that has not suffered a concrete injury caused by a defendant's action cannot spend its way into standing simply by expending money to gather information and advocate against the defendant's action."

The ruling was unanimous. Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence, arguing that the Court should "explain just how the Constitution permits associational standing" at all, but in a different, appropriate case.

Sixth Circuit Says Certain Religious Objectors Have Standing to Challenge Vaccine Mandate

The Sixth Circuit ruled that two religious objectors to a Cleveland, Ohio, hospital's COVID-19 vaccine mandate had standing to sue the hospital for a violation of Title VII, while dozens of other objectors didn't. The difference turned on whether each objector actually resigned, and, if so, whether each objector's resignation was a "constructive discharge," which, in turn, depended on when each resigned.

The case, Savel v. MetroHealth System, tested the hospital's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees. The hospital accepted applications for religious exemptions, then categorically denied all religious exemptions, telling objectors that they had 45 days to get a vaccine or be fired. But nine days short of the vaccine deadline, the hospital reversed course and granted all requests for religious exemptions.

Employees sued, arguing that the mandate violated Title VII. The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing or, in the alternative, failure to state a claim.

The Sixth Circuit agreed that most of the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court first noted that most of the plaintiffs were still employed by the hospital. It said that those plaintiffs' alleged injuries (severe mental anguish and the looming threat of losing their job if the hospital were to reinstate the mandate) were "too conclusory" and "contingent on future events that may never come to pass." Of the remaining plaintiffs, the court noted that most of them resigned after submitting exemption requests, but before the hospital denied them, and therefore failed to "support a theory of constructive discharge."

But the court said that two plaintiffs had standing. These two only resigned after the hospital denied their requests for exemptions, but before the 45-day deadline for getting a vaccine. The court said that these resignations amounted to constructive discharges, because "the forty-five day window was not an uncertain process that may or may not end in discharge." To the contrary, the "facts plausibly allege that [the hospital] communicated to Plaintiffs 1 and 2 that they would be terminated after forty-five days if they refused to be vaccinated on religious grounds."

At the same time, though, the court noted that these plaintiffs "may lack standing at a latter phase of this litigation based on additional evidence about the certainty of termination."

The ruling sends the case back to the district court for further proceedings on these two plaintiffs' claims.

High Court Lets Texas Run its own Immigration Policy, for now

The Supreme Court today allowed Texas's S.B. 4, the state's effort to regulate immigration, to go into effect, at least temporarily. The ruling came with no explanation from the Court, though several justices wrote separately (as below).

The cases, United States v. Texas and Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. McCraw, test Texas's S.B. 4. That provision makes it a state crime for unauthorized noncitizens to enter or reside in Texas, and gives state courts the authority to remove unauthorized noncitizens without regard to federal immigration proceedings.

In short, S.B. 4 pretty plainly runs up against Arizona v. United States and federal supremacy over immigration enforcement.

And that's exactly what the district court said. The district court halted enforcement of the measure and declined to stay its injunction pending appeal. This meant that Texas couldn't enforce S.B. 4 as it pursued its appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

Texas asked the Fifth Circuit for a stay of the district court's order pending appeal. That would've allowed the state to enforce S.B. 4 during its appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

The Fifth Circuit deferred consideration of Texas's motion, however, and instead issued a "temporary administrative stay." An administrative stay is usually just a docket-management device that allows a court to pause an action for a short time while it considers a motion for a stay pending appeal (which requires legal analysis, including an analysis on the merits, and therefore a little more time). An administrative stay requires no legal analysis.

Justice Alito, as circuit justice, previously stayed the lower court's administrative stay, thus preventing Texas from enforcing S.B. 4. But the Court today denied the government's motion to vacate the Fifth Circuit's administrative stay.

This means that Texas can enforce S.B. 4 as long as the Fifth Circuit's administrative stay remains in effect. We don't know how long that could be. As Justice Sotomayor reminds us, "[t]he Fifth Circuit recently has developed a troubling habit of leaving 'administrative' stays in place for weeks if not months." (Remember: administrative stays are supposed to be short-term docket-management devices.) The Fifth Circuit expedited the appeal and deferred Texas's motion for a stay pending appeal to the merits panel. But given the Court's ruling today, the Fifth Circuit, which through its administrative stay already telegraphed its thoughts on S.B. 4, has no reason to move quickly.

In other words, it looks like the Fifth Circuit could be using an administrative stay as an end-run around the legal analysis required for a stay pending appeal, but yet to achieve the same result as a stay pending appeal. And it looks like the Supreme Court fell for the gambit. The upshot is that Texas can enforce a pretty plainly unconstitutional law--with significant implications for immigration enforcement, federalism, and international relations--as long as the Fifth Circuit wants to drag its feet on a ruling on the merits (either in a ruling on Texas's motion for a stay pending appeal, or on the appeal itself).

Justice Barrett, joined by Justice Kavanaugh, concurred, but warned that "[t]he time may come, in this case or another, when this Court is forced to conclude that an administrative stay has effectively become a stay pending appeal and review it accordingly." "But at this junction in this case, that conclusion would be premature."

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, dissented, detailing the many legal and practical problems with the Court's ruling. "The Court gives a green light to a law that will upend the longstanding federal-state balance of power and sow chaos, when the only court to consider the law concluded that it is likely unconstitutional."

Justice Kagan separately dissented, arguing that the Court should vacate the stay under the stay-pending-appeal standard, whether the Court calls the Fifth Circuit's stay an administrative stay or a stay pending appeal. That's because on the merits, "the subject of immigration generally, and the entry and removal of noncitizens particularly, are matters long thought the special province of the Federal Government."

 

Sixth Circuit Says Plaintiff Has Standing for Preenforcement Challenge to State Ballot Self Ban

The Sixth Circuit ruled that a plaintiff had standing to lodge a pre-enforcement challenge to Ohio's criminal ban on ballot selfies. The ruling sends the case back to the district court for proceedings on the merits--whether the ban violates the First Amendment.

The court ruled that a plaintiff who took a ballot selfie and wished to publicize it, but didn't, had standing to challenge Ohio's law, because, among other things, she demonstrated a "credible threat of enforcement." The court explained:

On this record, an individual deciding whether to display a photograph of his or her marked ballot must do so in light of the following: a law that punishes revealing one's marked ballot with imprisonment, repeated statements by Defendants that posting photographs of a marked ballot is illegal, no evidence that Defendants have publicly disavowed these statements, and at least one past instance in which the Board has ordered an individual to remove a ballot from display. Under these circumstances, [the plaintiff] demonstrates more than a "subjective apprehension and a personal (self-imposed) unwillingness" to post a ballot photograph. Therefore, she has alleged an injury in fact at the summary judgment stage.

Seventh Circuit Says Parent Group Lacks Standing to Challenge School Guidelines for LGBTQ Students

The Seventh Circuit ruled last week that a parent organization lacked standing to challenge a school district's "guidelines" for schools to follow "to address the needs of transgender, nonbinary, and/or gender non-conforming students." The court said that the plaintiff organization simply hadn't alleged that its members were harmed.

The case, Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire Area School District, arose when Parents Protecting lodged a facial challenge to the District's brand-new policy to "foster inclusive and welcoming environments that are free from discrimination, harassment, and bullying regardless of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression." The District issued "Administrative Guidance" for schools to follow and a "Gender Support Plan," both of which recognize that there are circumstances where "parents are not involved." Still, by its terms, the Plan is a student record, and a parent can gain access upon request.

Parents Protecting argued that the Guidance and Plan violated its members' rights to due process and free exercise. But their pre-enforcement, facial challenge failed to identify a particular harm to members.

As a result, the Seventh Circuit said that the group lacked standing, and dismissed the case.

The ruling contrasts with a ruling just today from the Fifth Circuit, where the court held that a parent had standing to challenge federal law that prohibited federal contraception grant recipients from informing parents of a minor that the minor sought contraception. The parent in that case also didn't allege that the policy resulted in actual services in violation of their rights, yet the Fifth Circuit nevertheless said that the parent had standing.

Second Circuit Says Organization Must Identify Harmed Members to Challenge Corporate Diversity Program

The Second Circuit ruled this week that a membership organization lacked standing to challenge a corporate diversity program when it failed to disclose the names of its allegedly harmed members, even to the court. The ruling ends the case, although the organization could refile and name names.

The case arose when Do No Harm, a membership organization, sued Pfizer over the corporation's Breakthrough Fellowship Program. The Program is designed "to advance students and early career colleagues of Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, and Native American descent." Do No Harm argued that the Program excludes white and Asian-American applicants in violation of Title VI, among other things, and sought a preliminary injunction.

But there was a problem: Do No Harm didn't provide the names of its members who were allegedly harmed, even to the court in camera.

The district court held that Do No Harm therefore lacked standing and dismissed the case. The Second Circuit affirmed.

The court ruled that an organization, in order to establish standing on behalf of its members, must name the allegedly harmed members, at least to the court (even if not in not in the public filings). "[A] requirement that a plaintiff association seeking to establish standing on the basis of injuries to its members identify at least one injured member by name best aligns with Supreme Court precedent, including [Summers v. Earth Island Institute], is most consistent with the principles underlying organizational standing, and is bolstered by the conclusions of numerous other courts."

The court went on to affirm the district court's dismissal of the case (and not merely deny the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction). Although it recognized that the issue has two sides (deny the motion, or dismiss the case entirely), the court definitely came down on the dismissal side: "as a general matter, when a court determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it cannot consider the merits of the preliminary injunction motion and should dismiss the action in its entirety."

Can Minority Members on a Congressional Committee Sue to Get Agency Material?

The Supreme Court this week agreed to hear a case testing whether minority members on a congressional committee can sue to enforce their statutory right to obtain material from an agency.

But this isn't just any minority, and it's not just any agency material. The dispute arises out of congressional Democrats' efforts to obtain material from the General Services Administration about the Trump organization's lease with the Old Post Office for the Trump International Hotel.

In February 2017, the then-House Oversight Committee ranking member and seven other Democrats (but not a majority of the Committee, because Dems were in the minority) asked GSA for material related to GSA's 2013 lease of the Old Post Office building to Trump Old Post Office LLC. The members cited 5 U.S.C. Sec. 2954, which provides

An Executive agency, on request of the [Committee on Oversight and Reform] of the House of Representatives, or of any seven members thereof, or on request of the Committee on [Homeland Security and] Governmental Affairs of the Senate, or any five members thereof, shall submit any information requested of it relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of the committee.

GSA declined; the members sued; and GSA argued that the members lacked standing.

The case, Maloney v. Murphy, now pits two theories of standing against each other. On the one hand, the members say that they have standing based on an informational harm--that they have a right to information (under Section 2954), and that the GSA denied them that information. This is a little like you or me seeking to enforce a FOIA request in court: a statute grants us a right to information, an agency declines to provide it, and we can sue. But the theory depends on members suffering an informational harm that is personal and individual to them (even if as members of Congress), and not a harm on behalf of Congress (or a committee of Congress) as a body. They point to Powell v. McCormack, among other cases, where the Court has held that a member of Congress has standing based on an injury that is particular to them as a legislator. The D.C. Circuit adopted this theory when it ruled that the members have standing.

On the other hand, GSA (then and now) says that individual members lack standing based on a harm to Congress, the House, or their committee. GSA points to Raines v. Byrd, where the Court held that individual members of Congress can't sue to challenge the Line Item Veto Act, because the harm went to Congress, not to the individual members.

The difference will likely turn on how the Court interprets Section 2954. If the Court reads the statute to authorize individual members to obtain agency material as individual legislators, to serve their individual legislative functions, then the Court will likely say that the members have standing. But if the Court reads the statute to protect the right of the committees to obtain information, it'll likely say they don't.

Why Did the Eighth Circuit Halt Educational Debt Cancellation (after Justice Barrett allowed it)?

Steven D. Schwinn, University of Illinois Chicago School of Law

Justice Barrett last week denied an emergency request by a Wisconsin taxpayer association to halt the Biden Administration's program to cancel qualifying student debt. The ruling meant that the Administration could continue to operate the program pending the association's appeal.

Then the Eighth Circuit granted the same emergency relief to Missouri in a parallel case. This ruling halted the program pending appeal.

The two cases raise the same legal claims. District courts in both cases dismissed the cases because the plaintiffs lacked standing. (The Seventh Circuit refused to halt the program while the Wisconsin group appealed.)

So why the difference? Neither Justice Barrett's order nor the Eighth Circuit order contains any legal analysis. So we don't know for sure. But here's a take:

In order to establish standing, a plaintiff has to plausibly allege that they've suffered, or will imminently suffer, a concrete and personal harm, caused by the defendant's actions, and redressible in federal court. Because the harm must be concrete and personal (to the plaintiff), a person or organization cannot establish standing simply because they don't like the way the government is using their taxes. This kind of "generalized taxpayer" harm is too diffuse, and the Court has rejected it as a basis for standing.

The plaintiff in the Wisconsin case is a taxpayer association that unashamedly pleads generalized taxpayer standing. The district court easily rejected standing in that case, and the Seventh Circuit easily declined to halt the Administration's program pending the plaintiff's appeal. Justice Barrett then easily denied the plaintiff's request for emergency relief.

The plaintiff in the Missouri case, in contrast, is the state itself. It asserted standing on behalf of an organization that the state established to service federal loans. The district court ruled that the state didn't have authority to sue on the organization's behalf, and therefore lacked standing. While this seems right (or at least not obviously wrong), it's a closer case than the Wisconsin plaintiff.

That difference may explain the difference in the two preliminary rulings. The Eighth Circuit might've thought that Missouri could establish standing, where Justice Barrett might've seen that the Wisconsin organization couldn't.

But the key word there is "preliminary." No court has yet ruled on the merits. The Administration justifies the debt-cancellation program under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, which authorizes the Secretary of Education to "waive or modify" terms of federal student loans in an emergency, here COVID-19. The plaintiffs claim in short that the Administration's debt cancellation exceeds the statutory authority, or, if it doesn't, that the statute grants too much discretion in violation of the recently discovered major questions doctrine. Here's the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion on the issue.

Third Circuit Tosses Case Against Pennsylvania COVID Restrictions

Steven D. Schwinn, University of Illinois Chicago School of Law

The Third Circuit ruled yesterday that a case challenging COVID orders of Pennsylvania's governor and secretary of health was moot. The court then vacated the lower court's ruling in favor of the plaintiffs under Munsingwear.

The case, County of Butler v. Governor of Pennsylvania, challenged the defendants' stay-at-home orders, business closure orders, and orders setting congregation limits in secular settings. The district court ruled that the orders violated the Constitution.

But while the appeal was pending, things changed. An amendment to the state constitution and a concurrent resolution of the General Assembly now limit the governor's authority to issue these orders. And the orders expired by their own terms.

The court ruled that these changes mooted the case, and that no exception to mootness applied. It said that the voluntary cessation exception didn't apply, because the orders expired on their own terms, and not in response to litigation. And it said that the capable-of-repetition-but-evading-review exception didn't apply, because the orders were reviewed (and thus didn't evade review), and because there's no chance this'll happen again (and so isn't capable of repetition).

The court went on to rule that the case became moot because of circumstances outside the defendants' control--that they weren't mooting the case themselves in order to game the courts. As such, the court vacated the district court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs under Munsingwear.

Seventh Circuit Upholds Anti-Patronage Consent Decrees Against Cook County Clerk

Steven D. Schwinn, University of Illinois Chicago School of Law

The Seventh Circuit yesterday rebuffed the Cook County Clerk's challenge to a pair of consent decrees designed to monitor political patronage practices in that office and others. The ruling means that the decrees stay on the books (or, more precisely, on the district court's docket). But at the same time, the court warned that federalism concerns counsel in favor of resolving the case, and clearing the decrees from the court's docket, "swift[ly]."

The case, Shakman v. Clerk of Cook County, originated with two consent decrees, the "Shakman Decrees," from 1972 and 1991. The 1972 Decree enjoined Chicago and Cook County officials from "conditioning, basing or knowingly prejudicing or affecting any term or aspect of governmental employment, with respect to one who is at the time already a governmental employee, upon or because of any political reason or factor." The 1991 Decree expanded the 1972 Decree to cover hiring decisions: among other things, it required officials to post "prior public notice of the opportunity to apply for and be hired for" all positions, with just a few exceptions. (The City of Chicago and the Chicago Park District have since demonstrated substantial compliance and have been dismissed.)

While the Shakman Decrees remained on the district court's docket, there wasn't really any significant activity until 2019. That's when Shakman, the Voters Organization, and other plaintiffs moved for the appointment of a special master to monitor the Clerk's compliance with the Decrees. The plaintiffs claimed that the Clerk's hiring practices violated the 1991 Decree and that the Clerk took retaliatory actions against employees in violation of the 1972 Decree.

The Clerk opposed the motion and asked the magistrate judge to vacate both Decrees. After discovery and an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge found that the Clerk violated the Decrees, appointed a special master, and rejected the Clerk's request to vacate the Decrees. The Clerk appealed, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing, that the case raised nonjusticiable political questions, and that the Clerk's actions didn't violate the Decrees.

The Seventh Circuit disagreed. The court ruled first that the plaintiffs had standing, because at least one member of the Voters Organization was a current employee in the Clerk's office who refused to engage in political patronage and suffered reprisal. The court said next that the case didn't raise a nonjusticiable political question, because "both the legal right and applicable standard here"--free association under Elrod v. Burns--"are evident and judicially manageable." Finally, the court held that the magistrate judge didn't clearly err in concluding that the Clerk's "ongoing violations reflect the precise political patronage the Consent Decrees seek to end."

The court noted, however, that federalism considerations counsel in favor of ending the Decrees now, or very soon:

Our federal structure, including the Article III Case or Controversy requirement, does not contemplate federal courts putting units of state or local government under what amounts to static and permanent consent decrees. Federal injunctions interfere with local control over local decision making, and, in turn, local democracy does not work as our federal constitutional design envisions.

Court Says Plaintiffs Can Sue Ford Where Torts Occurred

Steven D. Schwinn, University of Illinois Chicago School of Law

The Supreme Court ruled this week that Ford had sufficient contacts with states where plaintiffs suffered injuries in Ford vehicles to allow the plaintiffs to sue there. The ruling means that the plaintiffs can pursue their claims against Ford in states where "Ford had systematically served a market . . . for the very vehicles" that caused the injuries, even though the plaintiffs didn't purchase their vehicles in those states, and even though Ford did not manufacture or design them there.

The holding breaks no new ground. But the reasoning might.

The case, Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, arose when plaintiffs who were injured in Ford vehicles in Montana and Minnesota sued the carmaker in those states. Ford argued that the state courts lacked personal jurisdiction, however, because the plaintiffs didn't buy the cars in those states, Ford didn't manufacture the cars there, and Ford didn't design the cars there--even though it had many other contacts with those states.

In other words, Ford said that there was no causal link between its behavior in the states and the plaintiffs' injuries.

The Court rejected this approach. In an opinion by Justice Kagan, the Court wrote that "Ford's causation-only approach finds no support in this Court's requirement of a 'connection' between a plaintiff's suit and a defendant's activities." The Court said that this result squares with language from World-Wide Volkswagen that "has appeared and reappeared in many cases since." Justice Alito summarized that language in his concurrence: "If a car manufacturer makes substantial efforts to sell vehicles in States A and B (and other States), and a defect in a vehicle first sold in State A causes injuries in an accident in State B, the manufacturer can be sued in State B."

In getting there, the Court looked to language in past opinions that said that a plaintiff's claims "must arise from or relate to the defendant's contacts" with the forum state. The Court read this as a disjunctive phrase, and said that while the first part ("arise from") requires causation, the second part ("relate to") doesn't. Even if the plaintiffs' claims here might not have "arose from" Ford contacts (in the causal sense), they certainly "related to" those contacts--and that's enough for personal jurisdiction.

Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch (joined by Justice Thomas) wrote separate concurrences taking issue with that parsing of the phrase. Justice Alito worried that "[r]ecognizing 'relate to' as an independent basis for specific jurisdiction risks needless complications." Instead, he'd "leave the law exactly where it stood before we took these cases." Justice Gorsuch said the Court's approach was "unnecessary" to resolve the case. He'd revisit the modern approach (starting with International Shoe) and look instead to "the Constitution's original meaning." He suggested that for a case like this (with a defendant "nationwide corporation" whose "business is everywhere"), the defendant could be sued anywhere.

D.C. Circuit Says House Committee Minority Can Sue to Get GSA Info

Steven D. Schwinn, University of Illinois Chicago Law School

The D.C. Circuit ruled this week that members of a House committee have standing to sue to enforce their statutory right to obtain information from executive agencies, in this case the General Services Administration.

The ruling means that the plaintiff-House members can pursue their claim to get the information, but it does not say that they'll win. In any event, the case is likely to become moot under President Biden, when the administration seems much more likely to comply with the request. (The ruling is likely to embolden minority Republican House members to ask for information from the Biden Administration.)

The case, Maloney v. Murphy, arose when Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee, then in a minority, sought information from the GSA related to the Agency's lease with a Trump corporation for the Old Post Office. The members invoked 5 U.S.C. Sec. 2954, which authorizes seven members of the House Oversight Committee or five members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to request and obtain information from any executive agency. The statute functionally allows a minority group of lawmakers on those committees to obtain information from an executive agency, even if the full committee does not seek that same information. 

GSA balked, and the members sued. The district court granted the GSA's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, but the D.C. Circuit reversed.

The court said that the plaintiffs suffered a cognizable informational injury--that the GSA deprived them of information to which they were entitled, and that their lawsuit would redress that injury. 

The court went on to say that the injury was "personal," and not "institutional," and therefore the individual lawmakers had standing. (A personal injury is a direct harm to a person, or in this case a lawmaker; the harmed individual, even if a lawmaker, has standing to sue. An institutional injury, in contract, is a generalized harm to the institution, in this case the Committee; the Committee would have standing, but not an individual lawmaker.) The court explained:

The Requestors do not assert an injury to institutional powers of functions that "damages all Members of Congress and both Houses of Congress equally." The injury they claim--the denial of information to which they as individual legislators are statutorily entitled--befell them and only them. Section 2954 vested them specifically and particularly with the right to obtain information. The 34 other members of the Committee who never sought the information suffered no deprivation when it was withheld. Neither did the nearly 400 other Members of the House who were not on the Committee suffer any informational injury. Nor was the House (or Senate) itself harmed because the statutory right does not belong to those institutions.

Judge Ginsburg dissented:

The Plaintiff-Members here allege harm to the House rather than to themselves personally. Their theory of injury is that the General Services Administration (GSA), by refusing their request for certain documents, hindered their efforts to oversee the Executive and potentially to pass remedial legislation. The Complaint is clear and consistent on this point: The Plaintiff-Members were harmed through the "impedance of the oversight and legislative responsibilities that have been delegated to them by Congress . . . ."

Court Rebuffs Census Challenge

Steven D. Schwinn, University of Illinois Chicago Law School

The Supreme Court ruled today that the case challenging President Trump's plan to report reapportionment numbers to Congress without accounting for unauthorized aliens was not ripe for judicial review and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the plan. The Court said nothing about the merits of the case, although its practical effect allows the President to move forward.

The ruling means that the Commerce Secretary can go ahead and report the numbers of unauthorized aliens along with a total head-count to the President, and that the President can go ahead and report apportionment numbers to Congress based on total numbers minus unauthorized aliens.

This is unprecedented. Apportionment has never discounted for unauthorized aliens.

At the same time, it's not at all clear as a practical matter if or how the President will be able to implement this. And even if he does, the plaintiffs can come back and sue later, when they may meet a more friendly Court. (Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett seemed sympathetic to the plaintiffs' arguments during oral argument on the case. They could join Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan to rule against the President.)

The case arose when President Trump issued a memo this summer directing the Secretary of Commerce to report two sets of numbers to the President: (1) a raw census total head count; and (2) the number of unauthorized aliens in the country. President Trump wrote that he'd certify apportionment numbers to Congress based on the total head count minus the number of unauthorized aliens in the country. 

This would cause some states (with large populations of unauthorized aliens) to lose representation in Congress. It could also allow some states and local jurisdictions to lose vast amounts of federal funds, which are tied to census numbers. 

Some of those states sued, arguing that President Trump's memo violated the Constitution and federal law, both of which mandate apportionment based on "the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." 

The Court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and that the case wasn't ripe for judicial review. In an unsigned opinion, six justices ruled that the plaintiffs' claimed harms--loss of representation and federal funds--weren't certain enough to justify judicial intervention. "At present, this case is riddled with contingencies and speculation that impede judicial review." The Court noted that the President's memo was contingent ("to the extent practicable," for example), and that it's not even clear that the Secretary can compile the data by the statutory deadline. Moreover, it noted that federal funds may not even be affected: "According to the Government, federal funds are tied to data derived from the census, but not necessarily to the apportionment counts addressed by the memorandum."

Justice Breyer wrote a sharp and lengthy dissent, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. He argued that the plaintiffs had standing and that the case was ripe for review under settled Court precedent, and that the President's memo violated the Constitution and federal law.

SCOTUS Rebuffs Texas's Challenge to Battleground State Election Results

Steven D. Schwinn, University of Illinois Chicago Law School

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed Texas's challenge to election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin for lack of standing. The brief order simply read,

The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Texas argued that it asserted two harms sufficient to satisfy standing: (1) its citizens were harmed in their votes for president by other states' failures to comply with the Elections Clause; and (2) Texas itself was harmed in its role (as a state) in the Senate, where the vice president could break a tie.

The Court's ruling rejects those theories. It did not say anything about the Elections Clause, however. 

Justice Alito filed a statement, joined by Justice Thomas, reiterating their view that the Court lacked "discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction."

The ruling ends this challenge. But Trump supporters have already indicated that they'll seek to file similar challenges on behalf of individual voters in these states.

The Court's full docket, with the parties' filings and the many amicus filings, is here.

SCOTUS Says No Standing to Challenge State Political Balancing Requirements

Steven D. Schwinn, University of Illinois Chicago Law School

The Supreme Court ruled this week that a Delaware attorney lacked standing to challenge the state's political balancing requirements for seats on its courts. The ruling means that the Court didn't address the underlying merits question, whether the balancing requirements violate the First Amendment. It also didn't break any significant new ground on standing.

The case, Carney v. Adams, involved Delaware's two political balancing requirements for its courts, the "bare majority" requirement and the "major party" requirement. The bare majority requirement says that no more than a bare majority of judges on any of the state's five major courts "shall be of the same political party." The major party requirement says that judges not in the majority on three of the state's courts "shall be of the other major political party."

Delaware attorney James Adams sued, arguing that the provisions violated his First Amendment right to free association. There was just one problem: Adams failed to show that he was harmed by the two requirements. He hadn't applied for a judgeship and been rejected, and he hadn't even stated a determinate intent to apply for a particular judgeship for which he wouldn't qualify; he only said that he'd like to apply for a judgeship at some undefined point in the future--and that the political balancing requirements would prevent him from getting the job. So the Court ruled that he lacked standing.

Justice Breyer wrote for a unanimous Court. Justice Breyer concluded that Adams failed to show that he was "able and ready" to apply for a judgeship based on three considerations:

First, as we have laid out Adams' words "I would apply . . . " stand alone without any actual past injury, without reference to an anticipated timeframe, without prior judgeship applications, without prior relevant conversations, without efforts to determine likely openings, without other preparations or investigations, and without any other supporting evidence.

Second, the context offers Adams no support. It suggests an abstract, generalized grievance, not an actual desire to become a judge. . . .

Third, if we were to hold that Adams' few words of general intent--without more and against all contrary evidence--were sufficient here to show an "injury in fact," we would significantly weaken the longstanding legal doctrine preventing this Court from providing advisory opinions . . . .

Justice Breyer quoted Justice Powell in United States v. Richardson, reminding us why standing is an important separation-of-powers concern:

[Justice Powell] found it "inescapable" that to find standing based upon [a general interest, common to all members of the public] "would significantly alter the allocation of power at the national level, with a shift away from a democratic form of government." He added that "[w]e should be ever mindful of the contradictions that would arise if a democracy were to permit general oversight of the elected branches of government by a nonrepresentative, and in large measure insulated, judicial branch.

Justice Sotomayor concurred. She wrote to point out that the two requirements were very different and might very well require two different kinds of analysis, if and when this issue comes back to the courts. She also urged lower courts to certify the question of the severability of the two provisions to the state courts.

SCOTUS Says no Standing for Retirement-Plan Participants to Sue for Mismanagement

Steven D. Schwinn, UIC John Marshall Law School

A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled today in Thole v. U.S. Bank that retirement-plan participants can't sue their former employer for mismanagement of the plan, because they hadn't demonstrated sufficient direct and concrete harm.

The ruling deals a sharp blow to defined-benefit plan participants who seek to sue for plan mismanagement. Under the ruling, those participants have to wait until their actual benefits drop, or close to it. And even so, the Court's ruling may give employers an out. At the same time, the ruling shields employers from liability unless and until their mismanagement is so bad that it actually or imminently results in lowered benefits.

While the plaintiffs sued under the individual cause of action in ERISA, the Court's ruling is based on Article III standing. This means that Congress can't change the law to create more permissive standing.

The case arose when two retirees of U.S. Bank sued that Bank and others for mismanaging their retirement-plan assets. The plaintiffs sued under ERISA's individual cause of action.

The Court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because, in short, they didn't suffer a harm. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the five conservatives that the plaintiffs' monthly defined benefits didn't drop, or wouldn't imminently drop, based on the mismanagement, and any court ruling wouldn't affect their monthly benefits under the plan.

The Court also noted that the plaintiffs' benefits wouldn't drop even if the retirement plan failed, because the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation backstops failed retirement plans. This raises the question whether the plaintiffs would have standing even if the plan's failing led to a reduction in the benefits that the plan pays out (because the plaintiffs, after all, would theoretically continue to receive the full measure of their defined-benefit plan, even if from the PBGC, and not the plan).

The ruling means that the plaintiffs have to wait to sue until the plan's failure actually or imminently results in a reduction in their own benefits. And even then, the Court might've written in an out for the employer by noting that the PBGC backstops failing plans.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by the three other progressives, dissented. She argued that the plaintiffs have an interest in their plan's integrity, just as private trust beneficiaries have an interest in protecting their trust; that breach of a fiduciary duty is a cognizable injury, even if it doesn't result in financial harm or increased risk of nonpayment; and that the plaintiffs have associational standing to sue on behalf of the plan.

She concluded:

It is hard to overstate the harmful consequences of the Court's conclusion. . . . After today's decision, about 35 million people with defined-benefits plans will be vulnerable to fiduciary misconduct. The Court's reasoning allows fiduciaries to misuse pension funds so long as the employer has a strong enough balance sheet during (or, as alleged here, because of) the misbehavior. Indeed, the Court holds that the Constitution forbids retirees to remedy or prevent fiduciary breaches in federal court until their retirement plan or employer is on the brink of financial ruin. This is a remarkable result, and not only because this case is bookended by two financial crises.

High Court Says Ninth Circuit Impermissibly Ruled Beyond Issues in Case

Steven D. Schwinn, UIC John Marshall Law School

The Supreme Court ruled today in United States v. Sineneng-Smith that the Ninth Circuit overstepped when it invited amici to brief, and then ultimately ruled upon, an issue not raised by the parties. Justice Ginsburg concluded for a unanimous court, "[A] court is not hidebound by the precise arguments of counsel, but the Ninth Circuit's radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale."

The case arose when Evenlyn Sineneng-Smith, an immigration consultant, charged multiple clients over $6,000 each for filing applications for a labor certification program. The problem: the applications missed the deadline, and Sineneng-Smith knew it.

She was indicted for violations of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324, which makes it a felony to "encourag[e] or induc[e] an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law."

Sineneng-Smith argued that the provisions didn't cover her conduct and, if they did, that they violated the Petition and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment. The district court rejected those arguments and convicted her.

Sineneng-Smith appealed, raising the same claims. But the Ninth Circuit invited amici to brief and argue that Section 1324 was impermissibly overbroad (among other things), a claim that Sineneng-Smith hadn't yet raised. The Ninth Circuit ultimately ruled that Section 1324 was overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court reversed. The Court ruled that the Ninth Circuit reached out for this issue, in violation of the principle that courts rely on the parties to frame the issues. The Court vacated the judgment and remanded "for reconsideration shorn of the overbreadth inquiry interjected by the appellate panel and bearing a fair resemblance to the case shaped by the parties."

Justice Thomas concurred, but wrote that he would consider revisiting the overbreadth doctrine in an appropriate case.

Eleventh Circuit Says Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Challenge Florida's Ballot Sequence Law

Steven D. Schwinn, UIC John Marshall Law School

The Eleventh Circuit ruled this week that a group of Florida voters and organizations lacked standing to challenge the state's law that specifies the order of candidates on its ballots. The ruling dismisses the case and leaves the state law in place.

The plaintiffs in the case--Democratic state voters and organizations--challenged Florida's law that puts the candidate of the party that won the last gubernatorial election in the state at the top of the list of candidates for each office. They claimed that this gives up to a five percent advantage to that party (now Republicans), on average, in elections across the state, and that this violated their right to vote. The district court agreed.

But the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court held that the plaintiffs couldn't show an injury in fact that flowed from the defendant Secretary of State's actions and that could be redressed by a ruling of the court.

As to injury, the court held that the individual voters couldn't show a direct injury to their right to vote, and that their claims of vote dilution were insufficient to establish standing (because they relied on the statewide average vote dilution, not their own particular dilution). The court held that the organizations lacked associational standing for the same reasons, and that they lacked organizational standing (on their own) under a diversion-of-resources theory. According to the court, that's because they failed to show what activities they'd divert their resources from in order to deal with the ballot-sequence law.

As to causation and redressability, the court said that the Secretary didn't have authority under state law to enforce the ballot-sequence provision--the county supervisors do, and they're not part of the case--and so the plaintiffs couldn't show that the Secretary's actions caused any injury, or that judicial relief aimed at the Secretary would redress any injury.

Judge William Pryor concurred, arguing that the case also raised a non-justiciable political question (because the court didn't have "discernable and manageable standards" to work it out).

Judge Jill Pryor agreed that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an injury. But she argued that the question of the Secretary's authority under state law was much more complicated than the majority made it out to be, and she therefore wouldn't have ruled on causation and redressability. Judge Pryor argued that the court, by ruling on those points when it wasn't necessary, "creates a circuit split on the connection a state official must have with a challenged state statute for a plaintiff to satisfy traceability and redressability."

Fourth Circuit Allows Census Undercount Claim to Move Forward

Steven D. Schwinn, UIC John Marshall Law School

The Fourth Circuit ruled in NAACP v. Bureau of the Census that a lower court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' claims that the "methods and means" that the Census Bureau adopted for the 2020 Census would under-count African Americans. The court ordered the district court to allow the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The ruling said nothing about the merits.

The case involves the NAACP's claims under the Enumeration Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act that the Census Bureau's planned methodology for the 2020 Census will disproportionately undercount African Americans. The plaintiffs filed their initial complaint alleging certain deficiencies in the Bureau's approach and methodology. The district court dismissed the Enumeration Clause claim as unripe; it dismissed the APA claim on jurisdictional grounds. Just days after the district court ruled, the Bureau issued its "Operational Plan" for the 2020 Census. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint as to the APA, but denied it as to the Enumeration Clause, holding that this claim was still unripe. (The court held that the plaintiffs' claims wouldn't become ripe until after the 2020 Census.) The court then dismissed the case.

The Fourth Circuit reversed as to the Enumeration Clause. It held that "at the latest" the case was ripe "when the defendants announced that the Operational Plan was final and the plaintiffs sought leave to file an amended complaint." Moreover, it said that "delayed adjudication would result in hardship to the plaintiffs."

The court remanded the case with instructions to allow the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint as to the Enumeration Clause claim (but not as to the APA). It noted, however, that "we do not express any view regarding" the merits.