Opinion ID: 168212
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: C onstitutional Standing

Text: “Standing . . . raises jurisdictional questions and we are required to consider the issue sua sponte to ensure that there is an Article III case or controversy before us.” Rector v. City and County of Denver, 348 F.3d 935, 942 (10th Cir. 2003) (quotations omitted). The doctrine of standing limits who may bring a matter before the federal courts for adjudication. The “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” requires plaintiffs to show (1) that they have suffered an “injury in fact,” (2) that the injury is “fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant,” and (3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of W ildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (quotations, alterations omitted). W here, as here, the proceedings have reached the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff bears the burden of setting forth (by affidavit or other evidence) specific facts that, if proved, would establish these elements. Nova Health Sys. v. Gandy, 416 F.3d 1149, 1154 (10th Cir. 2005). -7- An injury in fact does not automatically occur by “[t]he mere presence on the statute books of an unconstitutional statute . . . , even if [plaintiffs] allege an inhibiting effect on constitutionally protected conduct prohibited by the statute.” W insness v. Yocom, 433 F.3d 727, 732 (10th Cir. 2006). W here a law has yet to be enforced against the plaintiff, the plaintiff is further required to show a “credible threat” of enforcement. Id.; see also Pac. Frontier v. Pleasant Grove City, 414 F.3d 1221, 1229 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[A] plaintiff establishes standing when a credible threat of prosecution or other consequences following from the statute’s enforcement is shown.”) (quotation omitted). Dr. John’s concedes in its opening brief that, at the time this suit was filed, 2 the ordinance had not been enforced against it. However, the City has plainly indicated that it intends to require Dr. John’s compliance; following the Utah Supreme Court’s M idvale decision, the City wrote to D r. John’s that it must complete the required SOB applications “or appropriate legal action will be commenced.” D r. John’s faces the choice between the proverbial rock and a hard place. If, on the one hand, Dr. John’s should accede to the City’s demand and apply for an SOB license, the record contains evidence of the burdens that would befall it. For example, Dr. John’s store manager stated that registration as an 2 “Standing is determined as of the time the action is brought.” Nova Health Sys., 416 F.3d at 1154. -8- SO B would lead to “a daily closing of the business during certain hours,” and John Coil, a senior official with Dr. John’s, testified that the requirement that every employee be licensed creates difficulty for the company. If, on the other hand, Dr. John’s refuses to apply for a license, it faces fines of up to $2,500 per day; the ordinance further authorizes the City “to institute criminal or civil proceedings necessary for” its enforcement. Thus, Dr. John’s has met the injuryin-fact requirement. Cf. Aid for W omen v. Foulston, 441 F.3d 1101, 1111 n.10 (10th Cir. 2006) (noting that plaintiff’s “‘if . . . then,’ approach to injury, (i.e., if w e don’t follow the [A ttorney G eneral’s] interpretation [of a statute], then we face prosecution, but if we do follow it, then we will harm our patients’ and clients’ constitutional rights)” was sufficient to show injury-in-fact “if Plaintiffs would be injured whether they follow the [Attorney General’s] interpretation or not.”). Given this injury-in-fact, causation and redressabilty are also established. The injury is plainly caused by the City’s passage of the ordinance and credible threat to enforce it. Further, the injury would be redressed by a declaration that the ordinance is unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement. W e therefore conclude that Dr. John’s has constitutional standing to challenge the ordinance’s constitutionality.