Opinion ID: 4535269
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facial Constitutionality Claims

Text: The plaintiffs challenged three Minnesota child welfare statutes as facially unconstitutional. See Minn. Stat. §§ 260C.007, subds. 5, 6, & 13; 260C.301, subd. 1; and 626.556, subd. 2. The district court determined that Mitchell and his children, -4- as individuals, lacked standing to challenge the facial constitutionality of the statutes and dismissed the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We review dismissal on the basis of standing de novo. Frost v. Sioux City, 920 F.3d 1158, 1161 (8th Cir. 2019). Mitchell and his children assert they have standing to challenge the statutes’ facial constitutionality because they might one day return to Minnesota. Stop Child Protection Services from Legally Kidnapping, an association of parents affected by Minnesota’s child-protection services, asserts it has standing because its members live in Minnesota, have had experiences with Minnesota’s child-protection system, and could again face state or county child abuse investigations. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact traceable to the defendant’s conduct that will likely be redressed by a favorable decision. Frost, 920 F.3d at 1161; see also Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1645, 1650 (2017). Plaintiffs seeking prospective relief based on past actions must show “a real and immediate threat that [they] would again suffer similar injury in the future.” Mosby v. Ligon, 418 F.3d 927, 933 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Speculative future harm does not establish a real and immediate threat of injury and is insufficient to confer standing. Frost, 920 F.3d at 1161. Mitchell’s or his children’s speculative return to Minnesota is insufficient to show a real and immediate threat of repeat injury. Without an injury in fact, Mitchell and his children lack standing. See Frost, 920 F.3d at 1161; see also City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101–02 (1983). An association like Stop Child Protection Services from Legally Kidnapping has standing if one of its members independently establishes standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511 (1975). The speculative future action alleged in the plaintiffs’ complaint is not enough to confer standing on -5- any individual member of the association. Neither the individual plaintiffs nor the association have standing to challenge the facial constitutionality of the Minnesota statutes.2