Opinion ID: 2198217
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Basic Principles of Standing

Text: Congress did not establish this court under Article III of the Constitution, but we nonetheless apply in every case the `constitutional' requirement of a `case or controversy' and the `prudential' prerequisites of standing. Speyer v. Barry, 588 A.2d 1147, 1160 (D.C.1991); see also D.C.Code § 11-705(b) (2001) (stating that divisions of this court hear and determine cases and controversies). In enforcing these requirements, we `look to' federal standing jurisprudence, [both] constitutional and prudential. Speyer, 588 A.2d at 1160 (summarizing Community Credit Union Servs., Inc. v. Federal Express Servs. Corp., 534 A.2d 331, 333 (D.C.1987)). The sine qua non of constitutional standing to sue is an actual or imminently threatened injury that is attributable to the defendant and capable of redress by the court. See Speyer, 588 A.2d at 1160. [5] The plaintiff, or those whom the plaintiff properly represents, must have suffered an injury in fact-an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized,... and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (internal quotation marks, citations and footnote omitted). [A] mere `interest in a problem,' no matter how longstanding the interest and no matter how qualified the organization is in evaluating the problem, is not sufficient by itself to render the organization `adversely affected' or `aggrieved' [for standing purposes]. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 739, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972). Similarly, [t]he mere fact that an organization redirects some of its resources to litigation and legal counseling in response to actions or inactions of another party is insufficient to impart standing upon the organization. National Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. United States, 314 U.S.App. D.C. 377, 383, 68 F.3d 1428, 1434 (1995) (quoting Association for Retarded Citizens v. Dallas County Mental Health & Mental Retardation Ctr., 19 F.3d 241, 244 (5th Cir.1994)). But a concrete and demonstrable injury to the organization's activities is enough for standing whether the injury is economic or non-economic. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 379, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982) (holding that a fair housing organization has suffered injury in fact for standing purposes if racially discriminatory steering practices of defendant realty corporation perceptibly impaired the organization's ability to provide counseling and referral services to low- and moderate-income home-seekers by requiring it to devote significant resources to identify and counteract such practices). An organizational plaintiff such as Friends may have standing to sue on behalf of its members as well as on its own behalf. See Sierra Club, 405 U.S. at 739, 92 S.Ct. 1361. [A]n association 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. Washington State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977). At least the first of these three conditions of associational standing is inherent in the constitutional case and controversy requirement. See United Food & Commercial Workers Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 555-56, 116 S.Ct. 1529, 134 L.Ed.2d 758 (1996).