Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 77.0

524US1

Unit: $U72

[09-06-00 17:28:15] PAGES PGT: OPIN

32

FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N v. AKINS

Scalia, J., dissenting

“properly fulﬁll his obligations as a member of the electorate
in voting” was “surely the kind of a generalized grievance”
that does not state an Article III case or controversy.
Id.,
at 176.

And ﬁnally, a narrower reading of “party aggrieved” is
supported by the doctrine of constitutional doubt, which
counsels us to interpret statutes, if possible, in such fashion
as to avoid grave constitutional questions. See United
States ex rel. Attorney General v. Delaware & Hudson Co.,
213 U. S. 366, 408 (1909); Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Flor-
ida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U. S.
568, 575 (1988). As I proceed to discuss, it is my view that
the Court’s entertainment of the present suit violates
Article III. Even if one disagrees with that judgment, how-
ever, it is clear from Richardson that the question is a close
one, so that the statute ought not be interpreted to pre-
sent it.

II

In Richardson, we dismissed for lack of standing a suit
whose “aggrievement” was precisely the “aggrievement” re-
spondents assert here: the Government’s unlawful refusal to
place information within the public domain. The only differ-
ence, in fact, is that the aggrievement there was more direct,
since the Government already had the information within
its possession, whereas here respondents seek enforcement
action that will bring information within the Government’s
possession and then require the information to be made pub-
lic. The plaintiff in Richardson challenged the Govern-
ment’s failure to disclose the expenditures of the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), in alleged violation of the consti-
tutional requirement, Art. I, § 9, cl. 7, that “a regular State-
ment and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all
public Money shall be published from time to time.” We
held that such a claim was a nonjusticiable “generalized
grievance” because “the impact on [plaintiff] is plainly undif-