Opinion ID: 613389
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Standing To Sue on Behalf of Students in the Auditory-Oral Program

Text: The parents do not have standing to bring the third count alleged in the complaint  that the decision to move the auditory-oral program to the Brandon Valley School District violated the plaintiffs' due process rights. The doctrine of standing limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to `those disputes which are appropriately resolved through the judicial process.' Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 591 (8th Cir.2009) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)). To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a plaintiff must present a `case' or `controversy' within the meaning of Article III of the Constitution. Id. To meet the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing, the plaintiffs must show that they have suffered an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Id. (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130) (alterations omitted). We conclude that the parents cannot show an injury in fact with respect to the third count. Although the parents have alleged a due process violation, none of them had children enrolled in the auditory-oral program at the school's campus during the 2008-2009 school year and none had children who were scheduled to participate in the program for the 2009-2010 school year. Article III generally requires injury to the plaintiff's personal legal interest. Braden, 588 F.3d at 591. That the parents have brought a putative class action lawsuit cannot save the due-process claim on behalf of the auditory-oral students, who are not part of this law suit. [I]f none of the named plaintiffs purporting to represent a class establishes the requisite of a case or controversy with the defendants, none may seek relief on behalf of himself or any other member of the class. O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974); see Sabers v. Delano, 100 F.3d 82, 84 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (Absent standing to bring the claim in her own right, [the plaintiff] is not eligible to represent a class of persons raising the same claim.). We thus conclude that judgment in favor of the defendants was appropriate on this count, as well.