Opinion ID: 706916
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: NTU's Standing as a Representative of Its Members' Interests

Text: 29 Even though NTU does not itself have standing to challenge Section 13208, it may have standing to attempt to redress the grievances of its members who are affected by Section 13208. See Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 342, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 2440, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977). To establish NTU's associational or representational standing in this case, we must find that (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. Id. at 343, 97 S.Ct. at 2441. 30 Determination of whether any NTU members would have standing to sue in their own right requires that at least one member demonstrate  'actual or imminent' 'injury-in-fact' that is 'fairly traceable' to the challenged decision and 'likely' to be 'redressed by a favorable decision.'  Committee for Effective Cellular Rules v. FCC, 53 F.3d 1309, 1315 (D.C.Cir.1995) (quoting Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560-61, 112 S.Ct. at 2136). NTU asserts that at least some of its members will be directly and adversely affected by Section 13208. According to NTU, its members include at least one estate of a testator who died between January 1 and February 25, 1993, leaving a taxable estate subject to the estate tax rate increase enacted in Section 13208, at least one legatee and one executor of such an estate, and at least one donor of a gift conveyed between January 1 and February 25, 1993 subject to Section 13208's gift tax increase. See Keating Aff. pp 12, 13, reprinted in App. G. At least one of each of these types of members also belonged to NTU when its complaint was filed on August 27, 1993. Id. p 14, reprinted in App. G. These members are directly affected by Section 13208 because they bear the burden of an increased estate or gift tax liability as a result of its enactment. Certainly, such injury would be redressed if we were to declare Section 13208 unconstitutional. Thus, NTU meets the first prong of the Hunt inquiry. 31 The second Hunt requirement is met because a challenge to Section 13208 clearly falls within NTU's stated purpose of work[ing] to reduce government spending and taxes by a program including but not limited to taxpayer organizing, legislative involvement, and public education. Keating Aff. Ex. B (NTU's Amended Certificate of Incorporation), reprinted in App. G. 32 Finally, NTU's arguments regarding the illegality of Section 13208 constitute a facial challenge to that statute that does not require individualized proof from NTU members and could be properly resolved in a group context. Hunt, 432 U.S. at 344, 97 S.Ct. at 2442; see also Committee for Effective Cellular Rules, 53 F.3d at 1315 (An organization's broad facial challenge to regulations does not require participation of individual members.). Thus, we find that NTU has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members.