Opinion ID: 830370
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the historical development

Text: OF MICHIGAN’S STANDING DOCTRINE The purpose of the standing doctrine is to assess whether a litigant’s interest in the issue is sufficient to “ensure sincere and vigorous advocacy.” Detroit Fire Fighters Ass’n v Detroit, 449 Mich 629, 633; 537 NW2d 436 (1995). Thus, the standing inquiry focuses on whether a litigant “is a proper party to request adjudication of a particular issue and not whether the issue itself is justiciable.” Allstate Ins Co v Hayes, 442 Mich 56, 68; 499 NW2d 743 (1993) (quotation marks and citations omitted). This doctrine has deep roots in Michigan law, and, although it has been used with increasing frequency in modern jurisprudence, before Lee it remained a limited, prudential doctrine. Historically, the standing doctrine grew out of cases where parties were seeking writs of mandamus to compel a public officer to perform a statutory duty. See, e.g., People ex rel Ayres v Bd of State Auditors, 42 Mich 422, 429-430; 4 NW 274 (1880); People ex rel Drake v University of Mich Regents, 4 Mich 98, 101-102 (1856). Standing 4 was a prudential limit, which is to say that the court’s decision to invoke it was “one of discretion and not of law.” Ayres, 42 Mich at 429. See, also, Toan v McGinn, 271 Mich 28, 33-34; 260 NW 108 (1935); Thompson v Secretary of State, 192 Mich 512, 522; 159 NW 65 (1916); Drake, 4 Mich at 103. The general rule was that a court would not hear a case where “an individual citizen, who is only interested in common with all other citizens of the state in the subject matter of [the] complaint,” was suing a public entity to force compliance with a legal duty. Drake, 4 Mich at 101-102. Generally, the court exercised its discretion to hear a case if the citizen had “some individual interest in the subject matter of [the] complaint which is not common to all the citizens of the state . . . .” Id. at 103. This was sometimes articulated as a special or specific injury or interest. Inglis v Pub Sch Employees Retirement Bd, 374 Mich 10, 13; 131 NW2d 54 (1964); Hastings Bd of Ed v Gilleland, 191 Mich 276, 278; 157 NW 609 (1916); Brophy v Schindler, 126 Mich 341, 347; 85 NW 1114 (1901). This rule was eventually applied in other cases where a party sought enforcement of a public right without a clear cause of action under the law, including where a plaintiff was seeking an injunction against a state agency on the basis that the agency’s actions were unconstitutional. Home Tel Co v Michigan R Comm, 174 Mich 219, 223-226; 140 NW 496 (1913). See, also, Gilleland, 191 Mich at 278, listing remedies to which the rule had been extended. Notably, these cases only discussed the doctrine when no cause of action was clearly provided under law and the Court was deciding whether, within its discretion, to allow the party to bring the claim despite the lack of an express cause of action. Further, the standing inquiry was distinct from the merits of the case. Thus, 5 although the Court sometimes reached the merits of a case despite concluding that a party lacked standing, the Court did not find it necessary to determine whether a party’s claim had merit in order to determine whether a party had standing. References to standing became more frequent in Michigan’s modern jurisprudence, and the doctrine was developed more extensively but remained a prudential limit that could, within the Court’s discretion, be ignored.3 Further, the fact that there was a cause of action under law, or the Legislature expressly conferred standing, was sufficient to establish standing.4 Where a party was seeking declaratory relief, the Court repeatedly held that meeting the requirements of the court rule governing declaratory actions was sufficient to establish standing. House Speaker v Governor, 443 Mich 560, 572-573; 506 NW2d 190 (1993); Allstate, 442 Mich at 69-70; Sloan v 3 See Detroit City Council v Mayor of Detroit, 449 Mich 670, 679 n 10; 537 NW2d 177 (1995), stating that the Court was not reaching the standing issue because the parties did not raise or brief it; People v Kevorkian, 447 Mich 436, 447 n 1; 527 NW2d 714 (1994) (opinion by CAVANAGH, C.J., and BRICKLEY and GRIFFIN, JJ.), noting that it was not addressing standing because the parties had not raised it; Auto Club Ins Ass’n v Frederick & Herrud, Inc (After Remand), 443 Mich 358, 371-372; 505 NW2d 820 (1993), noting that federal courts had split on whether subrogees had standing to sue under a federal act but the Court would permit a subrogee to sue “as a matter of public policy”; Blue Cross & Blue Shield v Governor, 422 Mich 1, 103 n 6; 367 NW2d 1 (1985) (opinion by LEVIN, J.), deciding to give a decision on the merits regardless of whether the plaintiff had standing because “this litigation has been pending for a number of years and the Legislature and the people need a decision . . . .” 4 See, generally, Nemeth v Abonmarche Dev, Inc, 457 Mich 16, 45; 576 NW2d 641 (1998) (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting), discussing the historical importance and validity of the Michigan environmental protection act’s citizen-standing provision. See, also, Walterhouse v Ackley, 459 Mich 924 (1998); Frame v Nehls, 452 Mich 171, 177-178; 550 NW2d 739 (1996). 6 Madison Hts, 425 Mich 288, 294-295; 389 NW2d 418 (1986). See, also, East Grand Rapids Sch Dist v Kent Co Tax Allocation Bd, 415 Mich 381, 392-395; 330 NW2d 7 (1982); Workman v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch, 404 Mich 477, 492 n 1; 274 NW2d 373 (1979); Shavers v Attorney General, 402 Mich 554, 588-592; 267 NW2d 72 (1978). The Court also reaffirmed that “[s]tanding does not address the ultimate merits of the substantive claims of the parties.” Detroit Fire Fighters Ass’n, 449 Mich at 633 (opinion by WEAVER, J.). See also Eide v Kelsey-Hayes Co, 431 Mich 26, 50 n 16; 427 NW2d 488 (1988) (opinion by GRIFFIN, J), treating standing as an inquiry that was distinct from whether the plaintiff’s requested remedy was available. While the doctrine continued to serve the purpose of ensuring “sincere and vigorous advocacy” by litigants, over time the test for satisfying this requirement was further developed. In cases involving public rights, the Court held that a litigant established standing by demonstrating a “substantial interest [that] will be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large.” House Speaker, 443 Mich at 572 (quotation marks and citations omitted). Additionally, however, the Court recognized that even if a statute did not expressly grant standing, it could be implied from duties created by law. See Romulus City Treasurer v Wayne Co Drain Comm’r, 413 Mich 728, 741; 322 NW2d 152 (1982), stating that there were cases in which “standing was not expressly granted by statute [but] standing was implied by the duties and obligations that were expressly stated.” Thus, where a statute did not expressly grant standing, this Court would consider whether the Legislature nonetheless intended to 7 confer standing on the plaintiffs.5 Bradley v Saranac Bd of Ed, 455 Mich 285, 296; 565 NW2d 650 (1997); Bowie v Arder, 441 Mich 23, 42; 490 NW2d 568 (1992); Girard v Wagenmaker, 437 Mich 231, 235; 470 NW2d 372 (1991); Shavers, 402 Mich at 587. In a case involving private rights, the Court explained that the litigant should have “some real interest in the cause of action, or a legal or equitable right, title, or interest in the subject matter of the controversy.” Bowie, 441 Mich at 42 (quotation marks and citation omitted). In summary, standing historically developed in Michigan as a limited, prudential doctrine that was intended to “ensure sincere and vigorous advocacy” by litigants. If a party had a cause of action under law, then standing was not an issue. But where a cause of action was not provided at law, the Court, in its discretion, would consider whether a litigant had standing based on a special injury or right or substantial interest that would be detrimentally affected in a manner different from the citizenry at large, or because, in the context of a statutory scheme, the Legislature had intended to confer standing on the 5 Although the Court splintered on how to articulate when standing could be implied from a statutory scheme that does not expressly grant standing in the last major pre-Lee case addressing this issue, Detroit Fire Fighters Ass’n, Justice WEAVER’s lead opinion articulated general principles consistent with the historical approach. 449 Mich at 633. Further, Justice MALLETT’s statement that the key issue is “whether the plaintiff can demonstrate any special right, injury, or zone of interest that deserves the protections of the law,” is consistent with the historical doctrine. 449 Mich at 663 (MALLETT, J.,