From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lance v. Coffman

U.S.
Mar 5, 2007
549 U.S. 437 (2007)

Summary

holding that plaintiffs lacked standing because “[t]he only injury [they] allege is that the law ... has not been followed”

Summary of this case from Novak v. United States

Opinion

No. 06-641.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO.

Decided March 5, 2007.

Appellants/Plaintiffs, Colorado citizens, filed this federal suit, arguing that Article V, § 44, of the State Constitution, as interpreted by the State Supreme Court, violates their rights under the Elections Clause of the U. S. Constitution by depriving the state legislature of its responsibility to draw congressional districts. After this Court vacated the District Court's initial judgment that it lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the District Court held that citizen-plaintiffs had standing to bring their Elections Clause challenge, but that the suit was barred by issue preclusion.

Held:

1. Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their Elections Clause claim. "A plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government . . . does not state an Article III case or controversy." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 573-574. Here, the only injury alleged is that the Elections Clause has not been followed — precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about government conduct this Court has refused to countenance in the past. See, e. g., Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U. S. 126. Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355, and Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U. S. 565, distinguished.

2. The District Court's judgment is affirmed as to the dismissal of plaintiffs' Petition Clause claim.

444 F. Supp. 2d 1149, affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.


The Elections Clause of the United States Constitution provides that the "Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators." Art. I, § 4, cl. 1 (emphasis added). When Colorado legislators were unable to redraw congressional districts after the 2000 census to accommodate an additional Representative, a state court did it for them. See Beauprez v. Avalos, 42 P. 3d 642 (Colo. 2002). The legislature was able to pass a redistricting plan in 2003, which Colorado's Governor signed into law. See Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 2-1-101.

Colorado's attorney general, however, filed an original action in the Colorado Supreme Court to enjoin Colorado's secretary of state from implementing this new plan, noting that Article V, § 44, of the Colorado Constitution limits redistricting to once per census. The Colorado General Assembly intervened in the action to defend its plan. The Colorado Supreme Court granted the injunction, holding that "judicially-created districts are just as binding and permanent as districts created by the General Assembly," and that the court-drawn plan must remain in effect until the next decennial census. People ex rel. Salazar v. Davidson, 79 P. 3d 1221, 1231 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U. S. 1093 (2004). The court further held that this result did not offend the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution. 79 P. 3d, at 1232.

Immediately after Salazar was decided, four Colorado citizens — none of whom had participated in Salazar — filed the instant action in Federal District Court. They argued that Article V, § 44, of the Colorado Constitution, as interpreted by the Colorado Supreme Court, violates their rights under the Elections Clause.

The District Court initially determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit in light of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but we vacated and remanded for further proceedings. Lance v. Dennis, 546 U. S. 459 (2006) ( per curiam). On remand, the District Court held that the citizen-plaintiffs had standing to bring their Elections Clause challenge. Lance v. Dennis, 444 F. Supp. 2d 1149, 1154-1155 (2006). The court went on, however, to hold that the suit was barred by issue preclusion because the plaintiffs "stand in privity with the Secretary of State and the General Assembly," who were on the losing side in the Salazar litigation. 444 F. Supp. 2d, at 1161. The concurring judge concluded that appellants lacked standing to sue in the first place. Id., at 1162 (Porfilio, J., concurring in result). Plaintiffs appeal once again.

Federal courts must determine that they have jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits. Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 94-95 (1998). Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to "Cases" and "Controversies." One component of the case-or-controversy requirement is standing, which requires a plaintiff to demonstrate the now-familiar elements of injury in fact, causation, and redressability. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560-561 (1992). "We have consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government — claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large — does not state an Article III case or controversy." Id., at 573-574. See also DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 344 (2006) (refusing to create an exception to the general prohibition on taxpayer standing for challenges to state tax or spending decisions, and observing that tax-payer standing has been rejected "because the alleged injury is not `concrete and particularized,' but instead a grievance the taxpayer `suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally'" (citation omitted)).

Our prior decision in this case did not violate this principle because Rooker-Feldman concerns a district court's subject-matter jurisdiction, Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U. S. 280, 291 (2005), and "there is no unyielding jurisdictional hierarchy," Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U. S. 574, 578 (1999).

Our refusal to serve as a forum for generalized grievances has a lengthy pedigree. In Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U. S. 126 (1922), for example, a citizen sued the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to challenge the procedures by which the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified. We dismissed the suit because it was "not a case within the meaning of . . . Article III." Id., at 129. The plaintiff sought to assert "only the right, possessed by every citizen, to require that the Government be administered according to law and that the public moneys be not wasted." Ibid. "Obviously," we held, "this general right does not entitle a private citizen to institute [a suit] in the federal courts." Id., at 129-130.

Similarly, in Ex parte Levitt, 302 U. S. 633 (1937) ( per curiam), we dismissed a citizen suit claiming that Justice Black's appointment to this Court contravened the Constitution's Ineligibility Clause, Art. I, § 6, cl. 2. We found that the petitioner had no interest in the suit "other than that of a citizen and a member of the bar of this Court." 302 U. S., at 634. That was not enough. To have standing, we observed, a plaintiff must have more than "a general interest common to all members of the public." Ibid. See also Frothingham v. Mellon, decided with Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 488 (1923) (taxpayer standing cannot be predicated upon an injury the plaintiff "suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally"). Cf. Tyler v. Judges of Court of Registration, 179 U. S. 405, 406 (1900) ("[E]ven in a proceeding which he prosecutes for the benefit of the public . . . [the plaintiff] must generally aver an injury peculiar to himself, as distinguished from the great body of his fellow citizens").

A pair of more recent cases further illustrates the point. In United States v. Richardson, 418 U. S. 166 (1974), a federal taxpayer challenged the Government's failure to disclose certain CIA expenditures as a violation of the Constitution's Accounts Clause, which requires that "a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." Art. I, § 9, cl. 7. Relying on Levitt, this Court dismissed the claim as a "generalized grievance" that is "plainly undifferentiated and `common to all members of the public.'" Richardson, 418 U. S., at 176-177. See also id., at 191 (Powell, J., concurring) ("The power recognized in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), is a potent one. Its prudent use seems to me incompatible with unlimited notions of taxpayer and citizen standing").

The same day, in Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208 (1974), we addressed standing to bring a challenge under the Constitution's Incompatibility Clause, which provides that "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." Art. I, § 6, cl. 2. Citizen-taxpayers brought a lawsuit contending that Members of Congress who were also members of the military Reserves violated the In-compatibility Clause. This Court dismissed for lack of standing. It "reaffirm[ed] Levitt in holding that standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here which is held in common by all members of the public, because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury all citizens share." 418 U. S., at 220. Refusing to entertain generalized grievances ensures that "there is a real need to exercise the power of judicial review" in a particular case, and it helps guarantee that courts fashion remedies "no broader than required by the precise facts to which the court's ruling would be applied." Id., at 221-222. In short, it ensures that courts exercise power that is judicial in nature.

The instant case parallels Fairchild, Levitt, and their progeny. The plaintiffs here are four Colorado voters. Three days after the Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision in Salazar, they filed a complaint alleging that "Article V, § 44 of the Colorado Constitution, as interpreted in Salazar, violated [the Elections Clause] of the U. S. Constitution by depriving the state legislature of its responsibility to draw congressional districts." Lance v. Davidson, 379 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1122 (2005). In light of the discussion above, the problem with this allegation should be obvious: The only injury plaintiffs allege is that the law — specifically the Elections Clause — has not been followed. This injury is precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government that we have refused to countenance in the past. It is quite different from the sorts of injuries alleged by plaintiffs in voting rights cases where we have found standing. See, e. g., Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 207-208 (1962). Because plaintiffs assert no particularized stake in the litigation, we hold that they lack standing to bring their Elections Clause claim.

Our two decisions construing the term "Legislature" in the Elections Clause do not contradict this holding. Each of these cases was filed by a relator on behalf of the State rather than private citizens acting on their own behalf, as is the case here. See State ex rel. Smiley v. Holm, 184 Minn. 647, 238 N. W. 792 (1931) ( per curiam), rev'd sub nom. Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355 (1932); Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U. S. 565 (1916). In neither case did we address whether a private citizen had alleged a "concrete and particularized" injury sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article III.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is therefore vacated in part, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the Elections Clause claim for lack of standing. We affirm the District Court's dismissal of the Petition Clause claim.

It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Lance v. Coffman

U.S.
Mar 5, 2007
549 U.S. 437 (2007)

holding that plaintiffs lacked standing because “[t]he only injury [they] allege is that the law ... has not been followed”

Summary of this case from Novak v. United States

holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to allege that the Elections Clause was violated, which "is precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government that we have refused to countenance in the past"

Summary of this case from In re Granick

holding that "Rooker-Feldman concerns a district court's subject-matter jurisdiction."

Summary of this case from Luxury Hotels Internations of P.R. Inc. v. Tosses

holding that voters challenging state law on grounds that it conflicted with the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution lacked standing

Summary of this case from Liberty Legal Foundation v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc.

holding that voters challenging state law on grounds that it conflicted with the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution lacked standing

Summary of this case from Liberty Legal Found. v. Nat'l Democratic Party of the USA, Inc.

holding that "there is no jurisdictional hierarchy" dictating which jurisdictional issue must be resolved first

Summary of this case from Ruiz-Rivera v. U.S.

holding that Colorado voters did not have standing under the Elections Clause of the Constitution, art. I, § 4, cl. 1, to challenge a provision of the Colorado constitution limiting the state's congressional redistricting to once per census

Summary of this case from Berg v. Obama

holding that "Rooker-Feldman concerns a district court's subject-matter jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from Torres-Heredia v. Lopez-Peña

finding no particularized injury in voters' challenge to districting plan where "only injury" alleged was that law "has not been followed."

Summary of this case from Lake v. Fontes

Finding that plaintiffs lacked standing where the only injury alleged was that the law had not been followed in the election and not a particularized impact on the plaintiffs' votes

Summary of this case from Nichols v. City of Rehoboth Beach

finding no standing where only injury asserted was that the law was not followed because the injury is “undifferentiated generalized”

Summary of this case from Moncier v. Haslam

concluding that voters lacked standing to bring an Elections Clause challenge regarding a congressional redistricting plan enforced by a state supreme court

Summary of this case from Hotze v. Hudspeth

rejecting standing where “the only injury plaintiffs allege is that the law-specifically the Elections Clause-has not been followed”

Summary of this case from Election Integrity Project Cal. v. Weber

describing this Court's "lengthy pedigree" in refusing to serve as a forum for generalized grievances

Summary of this case from Carney v. Adams

explaining that federal courts may bypass Article III standing inquiry to determine jurisdiction under RookerFeldman

Summary of this case from Efreom v. McKee

examining standing in the context of a claim under the Elections Clause

Summary of this case from Carson v. Simon

referencing "the now-familiar elements of injury in fact, causation, and redressability"

Summary of this case from Stringer v. Whitley

In Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007) (per curiam), the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a challenge to Colorado's 2003 redistricting plan brought by four private citizens because "[t]he only injury plaintiffs allege is that the law—specifically the Elections Clause [U.S. Const, art. I, § 4, cl. 1]—has not been followed."

Summary of this case from Moncier v. Haslam

In Lance, the plaintiffs were “four Colorado citizens” who contended that the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution required the state of Colorado to use congressional districts drawn by the state legislature, rather than those drawn by a state court, to elect members of the U.S. House of Representatives. 549 U.S. at 438, 127 S.Ct. 1194.

Summary of this case from League of United Latin American Citizens v. City of Boerne

noting that the "[t]he only injury plaintiffs allege is that the law . . . has not been followed. This injury is precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the conduct of government that we have refused to countenance in the past."

Summary of this case from Common Cause of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania

In Lance, a state court redrew congressional district boundaries when the Colorado legislature was unable to agree on how to set the boundaries to accommodate an additional member of the federal House of Representatives following the 2000 census.

Summary of this case from Nolles v. State Committee

In Lance, four Colorado voters brought a claim in federal court, alleging that a provision of the Colorado Constitution permitting congressional redistricting only once per census violated their Elections Clause right to have their elected representatives set their congressional district boundaries.See id.

Summary of this case from Nolles v. State Committee

In Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007), for example, a group of voters alleged that a provision in the Colorado Constitution allowing congressional redistricting only once per census violated their right under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution to have their elected representatives establish their congressional districts.

Summary of this case from Graeff v. United States Election Assistance Comm'n

dismissing for lack of Article III injury in fact the voters' challenge to redistricting plan

Summary of this case from Brunson v. Adams

asserting only that the law has not been followed is insufficient to establish standing

Summary of this case from Pa. Voters All. v. Ctr. Cnty.
Case details for

Lance v. Coffman

Case Details

Full title:LANCE ET AL. v. COFFMAN, COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE

Court:U.S.

Date published: Mar 5, 2007

Citations

549 U.S. 437 (2007)
127 S. Ct. 1194

Citing Cases

Common Cause v. Rucho

To be sure, bringing a claim that implicates a structural harm does not absolve litigants from the…

Tex. Voters All. v. Dallas Cnty.

Here, Plaintiffs allege an injury that is "the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance about the…