Document: 475 U.S. 534 106 S.Ct. 1326 89 L.Ed.2d 501 Michael BENDER, et al., Petitionersv.WILLIAMSPORT AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT al. No. 84-773. Argued Oct. 15, 1985. Decided March 25, 1986. Rehearing Denied May 19, See 476 1132, 2003. Syllabus When a group of high school students in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, formed club for the purpose promoting "spiritual growth and positive attitudes lives its members," they asked Principal permission to hold meetings on premises during student activity periods. The matter was referred School Superintendent, who denied basis an opinion District Solicitor, Board upheld denial. then filed suit Federal Court against District, members Board, Principal, alleging that refusal allow meet same as other groups because religious activities violated First Amendment, seeking declaratory injunctive relief. Court, motions summary judgment, ruled students' favor, but entered no injunction granted relief any defendant his individual capacity. took appeal, complied with judgment allowed conduct requested. However, respondent Youngman (hereafter respondent), still member did appeal. No one raised question about standing Appeals held favor. Held: Respondent had therefore jurisdiction hear Pp. 541-549. (a) courts have only power is authorized by Article III Constitution federal statutes enacted pursuant thereto. Every appellate court must satisfy itself party invoke has sufficient stake outcome litigation support jurisdiction. 541-543. (b) appeal Although complaint alleged action brought defendants "in their official capacities," there nothing else or record suggestion sought awarded P. 543. (c) As sued capacity, personal His status not permit him "step into shoes Board" right 543-545. (d) Nor capacity parent attending school. There indicate anything he children suffered injury result Court's subsequent entry judgment. thus plainly "party" Court. 545-549. 741 F.2d 538 (CA3 1984), vacated remanded. STEVENS, J., delivered which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. concurring opinion, post, p. 549. BURGER, C.J., dissenting WHITE REHNQUIST, joined, 551. POWELL, 555. James Madison Smart, Jr., Kansas City, Mo., petitioners. Charles Fried, Cambridge, Mass., amicus curiae, petitioners, special leave John C. Youngman, Pa., respondents. Justice STEVENS 1 This case raises important considered Appeals: Whether from Board. We conclude although cannot Board's interest confer upon himself. 2 * In September 1981 called "Petros" members." App. 46. periods scheduled regular schoolday Tuesdays Thursdays. Petros organizational meeting attended approximately 45 students. At passages scripture were read some prayed. evidence students, parents, expressed opposition concern future Petros. nevertheless advised could further until discussed Superintendent. turn, would respond written request recognition after received "competent legal advice [from District's Solicitor] propriety approving establishment proposed prayer club" premises. Id., at 42. 3 On November 16, 1981, Superintendent met representatives them "based Solicitor's be denied." 563 F.Supp. 697, 701 (MD Pa.1983). part record; nor does contain person except Solicitor voiced Indeed, informed it off "would given released time period" if secure "a location adult supervisor, preferably clergyman" meetings. Ibid. 4 thereafter wrote letter Chairman Williamsport Area appealing Superintendent's decision. January 1982, decision "denied opinion." (citations omitted). II 5 June 2, 10 United States 9 general allegation first paragraph 13, specific concerning each named this form: "John capacity," id., 16. defendants' recognize Amendment. prayed 6 One answer behalf all defendants. admitted most material allegations complaint, "requested writing district solicitor counsel unlawful, improper unconstitutional said organization." 33. 7 After plaintiffs completed discovery (defendants depositions), parties cross-motions supported affidavits, deposition testimony, statements fact dispute. 9, order finding incomplete. It thereupon directed submit affidavits documentation "the exact nature period, type clubs been, be, approved, what groups, any, been approval." 101. additional information supplied, fully briefed, 12, 1983, detailed carefully stated: 8 "Presently before are parties' . presents law, say facts unimportant. contrary, undisputed paramount importance resolution presented case. A slight change very well dictated contrary "After reviewing those facts, giving full consideration pertinent authority, concludes constitutionally required deny opportunity meet, doing so solely constitutional grounds impermissibly burdened free-speech rights. Accordingly, will favor plaintiffs." F.Supp., 699-700. final ruling plaintiffs' freedom speech claim."1 entered, effect, merely attorney incorrect advice. 11 challenge way. made motion stay Instead, decided comply 12 file timely notice appeal.2 13 Mr. Youngman's note original graduated school, add currently enrolled prevent becoming moot. 538, 542, n. 1984). Neither majority even mentioned Youngman. 14 repeatedly stressing crucial role particular play every amendment analysis," 541-542,3 "that circumstances disclosed present High lead inexorable conclusion balance interests tilts permitting conducted within program," 561. 15 dissent, Judge Adams suggested implicitly adopted per se rule possibility extensions arrangement elsewhere," instead performing "more difficult adjudicative task [of sifting facts] case-by-case basis." 569. 16 petition certiorari persuaded us merited plenary review. 469 1206, 105 1167, 84 319 (1985). granting certiorari, however, we noticed neither opposed position challenged invoking Appeals. find necessary whether amici identified three different capacities may appeal—as individual, parent. IV 17 Before considering theories, appropriate restate certain basic principles limit court. jurisdiction; Congress See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, Cranch (5 U.S.) 137, 173-180, L.Ed. 60 (1803). For reason, obligation "satisfy own jurisdiction, also lower cause under review," though prepared concede it. Mitchell Maurer, 293 237, 244, 55 162, 165, 79 338 (1934). Juidice Vail, 430 327, 331-332, 97 1211, 1215, 51 376 (1977) (standing). "And discloses without defect, make contention [When court] lack[s] merits correcting error entertaining suit." Corrick, 298 435, 440, 56 829, 831, 80 1263 (1936) (footnotes omitted).4 18 defects appeals' subject-matter assumes when presented. such cases strictly adhered requirements ensure our deliberations benefit adversary presentation development relevant facts.5 Thus, emphasized Valley Forge Christian College Americans Separation Church State, Inc., 454 464, 472, 102 752, 758-59, 70 700 (1982): 19 "[A]t irreducible minimum, Art. requires invokes court's authority 'show personally actual threatened putatively illegal defendant,' Gladstone, Realtors Village Bellwood, 441 91, 99 [99 1601, 1608, 66] (1979), 'fairly can traced action' 'is likely redressed favorable decision,' Simon Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 26, 38, 41 [96 1917, 1924, 1925, 48 450] (1976). 20 "The requirement 'actual redressable court,' Simon, supra, 39 450], serves several 'implicit policies embodied III,' Flast [v. Cohen, 392 83,] 96 [88 1942, 1950, 947 (1968)]. tends assure questions resolved, rarified atmosphere debating society, concrete factual context conducive realistic appreciation consequences judicial action. 'standing' purposes. Because assures setting litigant asserts claim fact, decide confidence pave way lawsuits some, all, actually court." V 21 capacities." 13. is, based, her Certainly 1, supra. paraphrase holding Brandon Holt, 469, 873, 877, 83 878 (1985), "[t]he course proceedings abundantly clear [Mr. Youngman] capacity." Graham, 473 159, 167, 14, 3099, 3106, 87 114 Since capacity.6 VI 22 public servant 'in capacity' imposes liability entity represents provided, course, respond." U.S., 471-472, S.Ct., 878. repeated point Graham: 23 "Official-capacity suits 'generally represent another pleading officer agent.' Monell New York City Dept. Social Services, 436 658, 690, [98 2018, 2035, 55, 611] (1978). long government receives respond, official-capacity respects than name, treated entity. Brandon, supra [469 U.S.], 471-472 [105 878]. personally, real while award damages executed official's assets, plaintiff recover look itself." 165-166, 3105 (emphasis original, footnote 24 case, apparently lone dissenter eight forgo Tr. Oral Arg. 7. Generally speaking, collegial bodies do perfect body declined take.7 Columbia Circuit Smuck Hobson, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 372, 374-375, 408 175, 177-178 (1969) (en banc) (footnote omitted): 25 "We appealable Education. While defendant, Education undeniably principal figure alone collective Appellant fair participate defense, Having done so, separate litigation. directs take actions. But since decisions vote whole, apparent violate decree thereby become subject enforcement proceedings." 26 387, F.2d, 190 (McGowan, result). VII 27 oral argument least conscience hours. General submits provides adequate predicate 28 aggrieved parent, like kindred showing existence justiciable "case" "controversy" III, affirmatively appear record.8 Harlan observed, presumption below jurisdiction" unless appears record." King Bridge Co. Otoe County, 120 225, 226, 552, 30 623 (1887). Accord, Thomas Trustees, 195 207, 210, 24, 49 160 (1904); Minnesota Northern Securities Co., 194 48, 62-63, 598, 601, 870 (1904). That lack either matters not, Mansfield & L.M.R. Swan, 111 379, 382, 510, 511, 462 (1884): 29 "[T]he rule, springing limits States, inflexible exception, court, motion, and, exercise power, where which, act. writ fundamental first, comes. bound ask itself, otherwise suggested, respect relation it." Chicago, B. Q. R. Willard, 220 413, 419, 31 460, 462, 521 (1911); Powers, 201 35-36, 398, 50 633 (1906); Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Jones, 177 449, 453, 691, 44 842 (1900). Thomson Gaskill, 315 442, 446, 62 673, 675, 86 951 (1942). Moreover, "sufficient inferred argumentatively averments pleadings," Grace American Central Ins. 109 278, 284, 932 (1883); follows gleaned briefs arguments themselves. "first principle applies "whether trial stage stage." Bator, Mishkin, D. Shapiro, H. Wechsler, Hart Wechsler's Courts System 835-836 (2d ed. 1973). indicating record, might active supporters 32 reasons why foreclose differs already noted, legally "different personage." 6, filing forth defense desired assert.9 amenable dissent's unprecedented (and unexplained) governing determination should relaxed exception litigants "proper part[ies]" help i.e., Tacitly conceding these two bases, dissent parent—a therefore, reasoning apply. failed assert parental Court—or adduce Court—Mr. prosecute 33 merits. vacated, remanded instructions dismiss want 34 ordered. 35 concurring. 36 I join STEVENS' write separately emphasize cannot, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, through belated nontestimonial statement child School. 37 lawsuit dispute between parties," 551, litigated wishing hand, refused other. participated 3104-3105, controversy ended judgment; voting 8-1 minority, abandoned earlier agreed sought. left litigate parties. 38 one. dispute, JUSTICE's theory, asserting whose Amendment rights infringed attendance advance religion, activities, nowhere found. contest pursue intervened Absent intervention, conceivable bottom raise out are, anywhere extensive word father all. 166. brief suggests 10, 1983. Benjamin rather, claimed begun studying months later, fall Brief 3. Assertions purposes determining discrepancy, illustrates wisdom long-established requiring supporting "appea[r] 553, 40 petitioners' vacating remanding Chief whom REHNQUIST join, dissenting. 42 agree allowing extracurricular period reinstated. reach reverse 43 School; held, parents conditions schools attend. Engel Vitale, 370 421, 82 1261, 601 (1962); Zorach Clauson, 343 306, 72 679, 954 (1952). objection stems failure " 'to allege demonstrating proper remedial powers.' Ante, 545-547, (quoting Warth Seldin, 422 490, 518, 95 2197, 2215, (1975)). perfectly sensible impose burdens initiates These burdens, need placed properly seeks Once over established, seems remain powers To sure, require case-or-controversy throughout method exists indeed stage, Warth, normally face complaint. "complaining party" identifies himself challenges validity Only appellant's convince appeals Here, petitioners Appeals, conceded that, standing, satisfied test. 5. issue address: Establishment Clause student-initiated, student-led period. prohibits Fourteenth passing law "respecting religion." observed occasions, precise contours prohibition unclear. common ground State suppress person's content character. McDaniel Paty, 435 618, 641, 98 1322, 1335, 593 (1978), BRENNAN license treat religion teach practice it, simply virtue such, subversive ideals unique disabilities." And more recently, Widmar Vincent, 263, 269, 440 (1981), justify university's content-based exclusion forum generally open groups. 46 clearly controls student-initiated available discuss moral philosophy Marxism, French, chess; but, chose worship, violating Clause. 47 prohibited misinterpreted state religion. Under analysis, individual's discussion beliefs confused others being both viewed same. Yet commands vision capable distinguishing Clause, participation advocacy far protected Free Exercise Speech Clauses If latter retain vitality, utterly unproven, subjective impressions hypothetical transform expression belief advancement contend dismantle church erected private persons property overwhelming showed community thought owned operated State. "primary effect" inaction turn organized bearing threshold individuals. mandates neutrality, hostility, toward Black stated Everson Education, 330 18, 67 504, 513, 91 711 (1947), "requires neutral relations believers nonbelievers; adversary. used handicap religions them." (1952), release hours, receive instruction elsewhere. compel go classes, program undoubtedly advanced Douglas, eloquently rejected Clause: people institutions presuppose Supreme Being. guarantee worship chooses. room wide variety creeds spiritual needs man deem necessary. sponsor attitude shows partiality lets flourish according zeal adherents dogma. encourages cooperates authorities adjusting schedule events sectarian needs, best traditions. accommodates service needs. show callous indifference groups." 313-314, 684. By equal access forum, "follows traditions," 314, 684, wholly consistent Constitution. reached merits, restores sound analysis 52 53 JUSTICE much opinion. briefly controlled (1981). 54 "created use 267, 273. provided 30-minute Thursdays rooms including debate choosing. reading prayer. complaints faculty, observes 553. suit, total All free Widmar, essentially circumstances, University Missouri "discriminated speakers based desire engage discussion. forms association Amendment." 274. arguable distinction involved university here composed "less impressionable younger able appreciate University's policy neutrality 274, 277, 14. Other decisions, recognized extend Pico, 457 853, 864, 2799, 2806, 73 (1982) (opinion J.); Tinker Des Moines 393 503, 506-507, 733, 736, 731 (citing cases). believe—particularly age massive media information—that few years difference college justifies departing Widmar. accordingly dissent. text follows: "NOW, 12th day May, accordance set accompanying Opinion, hereby ordered that: "(1) Summary claim; "(2) "(3) Clerk shall close case." Pet. Cert. 105a. term office expired pending regard, consider Appeals' emphasis case," 559 deleted); "facts concededly question," ibid.; reference situation here," 559, 28; following statement: "Because factor impacts heavily pass muster, feel leading conclusion." 560, 30. also, Sumner Mata, 449 539, 547-548, 101 764, 769, 66 722 (1981); Kenosha Bruno, 412 507, 93 2222, 2225, (1973); Clark Paul Gray, 306 583, 588, 59 744, 1001 (1939); St. Mercury Indemnity Red Cab 303 283, 287-288, 58 586, 589-590, 845 (1938); Stratton Louis Southwestern 282 8, 75 135 (1930); Louisville Nashville Mottley, 211 149, 152, 42, 43, 126 (1908) cases); Cameron Hodges, 127 322, 325, 1154, 1155, (1888). Cf. Capron Van Noorden, (6 126, 127, 229 (1804). frequently factfinding process adjudication. Minnick California Corrections, 452 105, 120-127, 2211, 2219-2223, 68 706 England Louisiana Medical Examiners, 375 411, 416, 461, 465, (1964) ("How found often dictate claims"); Townsend Sain, 372 293, 312, 745, 756, 770 (1963) ("It typical, rare, claims contested issues"). 538-540, give Acts performed "are transactions personages." F. G. Hazard, Civil Procedure § 11.6, 594 (3d 1985). attorney's fees taken affect citation omitted), "liability responsibility hand hand; prevailed against, immunity [42 U.S.C.] 1988 authorize fee defendant." 164, 168-170, 3104, 3106-3107. entirely if, example, unanimous consent, event entitled protect effectiveness [his] vot[e]." Coleman Miller, 307 433, 438, 972, 975, 1385 (1939). 438-446, 975-978; 456, 983 (Black, concurring). diluted rendered nugatory mandamus remedy Secretary cf. 436-437, 974-975 (mandamus "to legislative action"); name. rationale employed Allen, 236, 241, 5, 88 1923, 1060 (1968), forced oath. Unlike Allen put having choose oath taking step bring expulsion reduction funds districts," ibid., voted abide absent state-law provision contrary. rules aspects reflections prudential considerations defining limiting courts, determinants intervention. complainant powers." 517-518, (1975). McNutt Motors Acceptance Corp., 178, 190, 780, 785, 1135 ("Here, bill jurisdictional amount traversed answer. contains bill. dismissed ground"); Jackson Ashton, (33 148, 898 (1834); Bingham Cabot, Dall. (3 383-384, 646 (1798). obviously incumbent Rule Rules "timely application" "stat[ing] grounds" intervention "setting sought." Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 24(a), (c). below. particularly observe diverges suit. necessarily parallel demonstrates interested obeying law—it dutifully followed lawyer's concluded Clause—it ruling, disfavored (or favored)

Category: 2