Opinion ID: 660150
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Causation/Redressability

Text: 13 In contrast to the plaintiffs in Ripon Society, Freedom Republicans brought suit not against the Republican Party, which is the direct source of its alleged injury, but against the FEC. When plaintiffs' asserted injury stems from the government's allegedly unlawful regulation (or lack of regulation) of someone else, Defenders of Wildlife, --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2137 (1992) (emphasis in original), the fairly traceable and redressability prongs of standing analysis require more exacting scrutiny. [W]hile not necessarily fatal to standing, the indirectness of injury  'may make it substantially more difficult to meet the minimum requirements of Art. III: to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions, or that prospective relief will remove the harm.'  Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 44-45, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1927, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 505, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2208, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975)). 14 Because this court has ruled previously on the issues of causation and redressability in the Title VI context, see Women's Equity Action League v. Cavazos, 879 F.2d 880, 885 (D.C.Cir.1989) (WEAL I ), we face as an initial matter the question whether the remaining two prongs of our standing inquiry have already been resolved in Freedom Republicans' favor. We conclude that they have not. In WEAL I, which presented a challenge to federal funding of racially segregated public schools, we stated that[304 U.S.App.D.C. 294] We have heretofore determined ... that federal funding of facilities that engage in proscribed discrimination is in part causative of the perpetuation of such discrimination, and that initiating federal fund termination proceedings [is] highly effective in gaining compliance with federal antidiscrimination laws. ... Furthermore, due respect for the legislative branch requires us to recognize that vigorous enforcement of laws Congress designed for plaintiffs' benefit has the potential to redress in meaningful measure plaintiffs' injury. 15 Id. at 885-86 (quoting Committee for Full Employment v. Blumenthal, 606 F.2d 1062, 1066 (D.C.Cir.1979); other citations omitted). Although couched in general terms, WEAL I did reference precedents suggesting that funding termination proceedings had been effective in the past in eradicating school segregation--and thus in redressing plaintiffs' specific injuries. See, e.g., National Black Police Ass'n, Inc. v. Velde, 712 F.2d 569, 575 n. 32 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 963, 104 S.Ct. 2180, 80 L.Ed.2d 562 (1984); Adams v. Richardson, 480 F.2d 1159, 1163 n. 4 (D.C.Cir.1973). WEAL I bolstered its reasoning with the notion that due deference to congressional judgments required a finding of redressability. 16 Despite its broad language, we do not believe that WEAL I obviates our duty to scrutinize closely the relationship between convention funding and the alleged discrimination at issue in this case. As an initial matter, we note that the legislative deference rationale, relied on as partial, though not exclusive, support for the redressability holding, has been undercut substantially by Defenders of Wildlife, --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2145 (1992). In Defenders of Wildlife, the Supreme Court determined in the course of its discussion of procedural injuries that Article III bound Congress as well as the courts, and implied that congressional findings with respect to causation and redressability to which we might have given deference in the past must now themselves independently satisfy Article III. Because of the express separation-of-powers concerns that animated the Court's justiciability inquiry in that case, see id., it now seems clear that ordinary deference to legislative factfinding does not translate into deference to congressional constructions of the demands of Article III. 17 Apart from deference, however, we believe that Defenders of Wildlife calls into question the WEAL I holding with respect to causation. Although the WEAL I court referenced cases containing statistical evidence on the effectiveness of termination proceedings, the court cited no similar precedent or independent evidence to support its conclusion as to causation, i.e., the link between the inception or continuation of the alleged discrimination and federal funding. See WEAL I, 879 F.2d at 885-86. At the very least, Defenders of Wildlife stands for the proposition that it is the burden of the plaintiff to adduce facts showing that [the unfettered choices made by independent actors] have been or will be made in such manner as to produce causation and permit redressability of injury. --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 2137. Because WEAL I cited no factual basis for causation, it appears not to have satisfied the more exacting scrutiny subsequently required by Defenders of Wildlife. 18 Moreover, Defenders of Wildlife makes clear that, even if the WEAL I redressability standard as applied to the facts of that case were justifiable, the opinion's precedential effect in other factual contexts is considerably more narrow than a broad reading of its language might suggest. Defenders of Wildlife stresses the importance of immediate factual context in establishing causation and redressability, to the exclusion of broader, statutory technique-oriented rationales. As the Supreme Court made emphatically clear in Defenders of Wildlife, [t]he party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the elements of standing. --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 2136. A blanket presumption that in Title VI suits, a plaintiff need not demonstrate particularized causation or redressability would severely undercut the separation-of-powers concerns underlying Article III. Accordingly, we view the WEAL I redressability holding as circumscribed by the WEAL I facts, rather than as a conclusive presumption [304 U.S.App.D.C. 295] of standing for Title VI plaintiffs. We note in this regard that the cases cited by WEAL I in support of redressability provided formidable evidence of the successful impact of funding termination proceedings initiated by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare against racially segregated schools--precisely the issue in WEAL I. 19 Our task then remains to ascertain whether Freedom Republicans has satisfied its burden of demonstrating both a causal connection between the FEC and its asserted injury and the likelihood of redress by judicial means. We conclude that it has not. We find neither sufficient causal nexus between the actions of the FEC authorizing convention funding and the delegate-selection practices of the Republican Party nor adequate likelihood, as opposed to speculation, that the Party would choose to change its time-tested delegate-selection mechanism rather than forego the convention funding. 20 When plaintiffs' claim hinges on the failure of government to prevent another party's injurious behavior, the fairly traceable and redressability inquiries appear to merge. See Competitive Enterprise Inst. v. NHTSA, 901 F.2d 107, 113 (D.C.Cir.1990). In such cases, both prongs of standing analysis can be said to focus on principles of causation: fair traceability turns on the causal nexus between the agency action and the asserted injury, while redressability centers on the causal connection between the asserted injury and judicial relief. See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 753 n. 19, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3325 n. 19, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). Despite these similarities, however, each inquiry has its own emphasis. Causation remains inherently historical; redressability quintessentially predictive. See id. 21 Upon careful review, we conclude that Freedom Republicans has not adduced sufficient evidence to demonstrate the requisite causal connection between the FEC and its asserted injury. By all accounts, the delegate-selection scheme currently employed by the Republican Party has been in place since early in this century. See, e.g., Brief for Appellant at 14; Freedom Republicans, TOWARD A PARTY OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (1991), reprinted in J.A. 29-92, at 51. The system of bonus delegates was introduced in the aftermath of the convention of 1912, which was characterized as the most tumultuous ever. CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY'S GUIDE TO U.S. ELECTIONS 64 (1975). During the 1912 convention, the Party adhered to its traditional policy of allocating delegates on the basis of a state's electoral college votes. Southern states, which possessed convention voting strength that exceeded their propensity to elect Republicans, successfully boosted President William Howard Taft to the nomination over former President Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt bolted to the Progressive Party in protest, garnering 27.39% of the popular vote in the general election (88 electoral votes) in comparison with Taft's 23.18% (8 electoral votes). Id. at 245, 284. The chief beneficiary of the internecine strife, and the victor in the general election with a southern sweep and 435 electoral votes, was the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson. See id. Shortly after this stunning defeat, the Republican Party reformed its delegate-allocation scheme. See id. at 68. Under the new formula, which considered a state's Republican voting strength in addition to its electoral vote, the southern states lost over a third of their delegates. See id. 3 22 The FEC's role in the funding of presidential nominating conventions began in 1974 with the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. Secs. 9001-9013. The Republican Party's practice of allocating delegates in accordance with Republican voting strength thus preceded public convention funding by fifty-eight years. Moreover, historical data strongly suggest the Party's particularized [304 U.S.App.D.C. 296] and nonmonetary motives in developing the bonus delegate system. In the aftermath of devastating defeat in the 1912 elections, the Republican Party pursued reforms that remedied a specific problem, the overrepresentation of states whose preferences did not translate into popular votes. This is basically the same rationale for preserving the delegate-selection scheme that has been proffered by the Party ever since, 4 see Brief of Amicus Curiae Republican National Committee at 7, 5 and plaintiff has adduced no evidence to suggest the contrary. In light of this, it would take a leap of logic to find causation for the bonus delegate system in public funding. As in Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 42-43, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1926, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976), the injury alleged in Freedom Republicans' complaint is not fairly traceable to any encouragement on the part of the government, but appears instead to be the result of decisions made by the Party without regard to funding implications. See also Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 759, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3328, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984) (The links in the chain of causation between the challenged Government conduct and the asserted injury are far too weak for the chain as a whole to sustain respondents' standing.). 23 Nor can we confidently predict any causal connection between a possible judicial response and the redress of appellee's injury. For fifty-eight years, the Republican Party maintained a bonus delegate scheme when the Party itself was responsible for drumming up the funds necessary to provide a convention. In the absence of any evidence that the perpetuation of the scheme is founded on other than pragmatic political considerations, we would be venturing into the realm of pure speculation were we to attempt to foretell the Party's response to termination of its present funding. Although current levels of public funding are substantial, 6 and the Republican Party would inevitably face a problem if its funding, but not that of the Democrats, were to be withdrawn, 7 we cannot begin to predict on this record what impact withdrawal might have on Party decisionmaking as to so vital a political decision as delegate-allocation. We must conclude, under the instruction of Defenders of Wildlife, that Freedom Republicans has not borne its burden of adducing evidence to demonstrate that it is  'likely,' as opposed to merely 'speculative,' that [its] injury will be 'redressed by a favorable decision.'  --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (quoting Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1924, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976)).