Opinion ID: 2622018
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the Post has standing to challenge the Act as it applies to its members' constitutional rights

Text: ś 27 The Post raises several constitutional claims on its own behalf and on behalf of its members. [18] KCHD asserts the Post lacks standing to argue that the Act violates its members' constitutional rights. [19] Standing requirements tend to overlap the requirements for justiciability under the UDJA. Amalgamated Transit, 142 Wash.2d at 203, 11 P.3d 762. There is a two-part test for standing under the UDJA. Grant County Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 150 Wash.2d 791, 802, 83 P.3d 419 (2004) (Grant County II). First, a party must be within the `zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute' in question. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Save a Valuable Env't v. City of Bothell, 89 Wash.2d 862, 866, 576 P.2d 401 (1978)). Second, the party must have suffered an injury in fact. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, the Post clearly has standing on its own behalf because it is within the zone of interests regulated by the Act and the Post was cited by KCHD for noncompliance with the Act. However, the Post, as a nonprofit corporation, is limited in the types of constitutional claims it can raise. Thus, it is necessary to distinguish which of the constitutional claims asserted by the Post can be brought on its own behalf. ś 28 [A] corporation is a `person' within the meaning of the equal protection and due process of law clauses. Grosjean v. Am. Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244, 56 S.Ct. 444, 80 L.Ed. 660 (1936); see Olympic Forest Prods., Inc. v. Chaussee Corp., 82 Wash.2d 418, 424, 511 P.2d 1002 (1973). However, while a corporation's property rights are protected by the due process clause, the liberty guaranteed by the due process clause applies only to natural persons. Hague v. Comm. for Indus. Org., 307 U.S. 496, 527, 59 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (1939). A corporation cannot bring a claim on its own behalf on the basis it was denied a liberty interest without due process of law. Id. Thus, the Post cannot claim the Act interferes with its liberty interests in violation of due process, but it can claim the ban denies it a property interest without due process, violates equal protection, or is void for vagueness. ś 29 The Post also claims the ban violates its right to privacy under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. [20] The pivotal question is whether a corporation is considered a person for the purposes of article I, section 7. Washington courts have recognized that corporations are protected by article I, section 7, albeit in the search and seizure context. See, e.g., Centimark Corp. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 129 Wash.App. 368, 375, 119 P.3d 865 (2005) (analyzing inspection of corporation under both the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7); Thurston County Rental Owners Ass'n v. Thurston County, 85 Wash.App. 171, 184-87, 931 P.2d 208 (1997) (analyzing association's claim that fees, permits, and inspections of on-site septic systems were unconstitutional invasions of privacy under article I, section 7). We assume for the preliminary purposes of standing, without holding, that the Post may claim that the Act violates its rights under article I, section 7. ś 30 In addition to personal standing, a party may have standing in a representational capacity. Grant County II, 150 Wash.2d at 803, 83 P.3d 419. An organization has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm'n., 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977). This court has adopted a more liberal approach to standing when a controversy is of substantial public importance, immediately affects significant segments of the population, and has a direct bearing on commerce, finance, labor, industry, or agriculture. Grant County II, 150 Wash.2d at 803, 83 P.3d 419. ś 31 In a similar case, an organization brought a suit challenging a smoking ban on behalf of its members. NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v. City of New York, 315 F.Supp.2d 461, 465 (S.D.N.Y.2004). The purpose of C.L.A.S.H. was to promote the interests of smokers and defend smoker's rights. Id. at 469. The court determined that C.L.A.S.H. met all three prongs of the Hunt representational standing test because the individual members had standing, smoking was germane to the purpose of the organization, and individual member participation was not required for a declaratory judgment. Id. ś 32 After considering C.L.A.S.H., the trial court in this case determined that, unlike C.L.A.S.H., smoking was not germane to the Post's purpose and, consequently, the Post lacked representational standing. The Post argues the trial court erred because smoking is germane to the Post's purpose of providing a social center for veterans and their families. The Post also argues its members have individual standing because the smoking ban impinge[s] on their existing privacy, associations and social relationships at the Post causing them irreparable harm and is likely to result in a loss of membership. CP at 104. ś 33 We affirm the trial court's ruling. The American Legion is a corporation established by federal statute, 36 U.S.C. § 21701(a), for the purposes of upholding and defending the constitution, promoting peace and goodwill throughout the world, preserv[ing] the memories and incidents of the 2 World Wars and the other great hostilities fought to uphold democracy, cement[ing] the ties and comradeship born of service, and consecrat[ing] the efforts of its members to mutual helpfulness and service to their country. 36 U.S.C. § 21702(3)-(5). The Post's primary purpose, as a local chapter, is to provide services and benefits to veterans and their families. It seeks to unite its membership in the bonds of fraternity, benevolence, and charity. CP at 103. ś 34 Smoking is not germane to any of the American Legion's or local Post's purposes. Consequently, the Post lacks representational standing under the Hunt test and is precluded from asserting that the Act violates its members' liberty interests without due process of law.