Opinion ID: 565274
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standing and the Individual Appellees

Text: 9 Under Article III of the Constitution, it is a jurisdictional prerequisite that plaintiffs present an actual case or controversy. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3324, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984); San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm. v. Eu, 826 F.2d 814, 821 (9th Cir.1987), aff'd 489 U.S. 214, 109 S.Ct. 1013, 103 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989). To satisfy this requirement plaintiffs must show, inter alia, that they have standing. Thus, plaintiffs must demonstrate: 10 at an irreducible minimum ... 'that [they] personally [have] suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant,' Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99 [99 S.Ct. 1601, 1607, 60 L.Ed.2d 66] (1979), and that the injury 'fairly can be traced to the challenged action' and 'is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision,' Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 41 [96 S.Ct. 1917, 1924, 1925, 48 L.Ed.2d 450] (1976). Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 758, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). 11 The essence of the government's standing argument with respect to the individual appellees is that they cannot show an immediate threat of harm. The government argues that, although once charged with the challenged provisions, the individual appellees are not now so charged. The government additionally argues that there is no imminent likelihood that they will again be charged under the challenged provisions. It notes that the only pending proceedings against the individual appellees are for routine status violations and that the [INS] has little or no incentive to reinstate the 'world communism' charges or to bring other charges under the non-routine provisions at issue here. Government's Opening Brief at 22. The threats to the individual appellees are therefore very attenuated because their injuries are unlikely to occur unless the government fails to sustain its routine violation charges and again institutes charges under the challenged provisions. The government analogizes this case to Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 109, 89 S.Ct. 956, 960, 22 L.Ed.2d 113 (1969). Finally, citing Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 12-15, 92 S.Ct. 2318, 2325-26, 33 L.Ed.2d 154 (1972), and Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41, 91 S.Ct. 746, 749, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), the government avers that it is pursuing non-controversial administrative procedures and the mere fact that it has not forsworn use of the challenged provisions does not confer standing upon the individual appellees. Instead, it argues this court should look to the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the individual appellees face an immediate threat of injury. Therefore, it is the government's position, it is irrelevant that Hamide and Shehadeh have been charged with violations of the challenged provisions because, as permanent resident aliens, they could not be deported for routine status violations. The same is true of the exclusion proceedings involving Fouad Rafeedie, a permanent resident and an alleged member of the PFLP, which were initiated when he tried to reenter the country. See Rafeedie v. INS, 880 F.2d 506 (D.C.Cir.1989). 12 The individual appellees contend that their standing is not affected by the fact that they are not currently charged with violations of the challenged provisions. They assert that they intend to engage in the proscribed conduct in the future and that the government has demonstrated its continued intention to enforce the challenged provisions. Since there is a continued threat of prosecution, individual appellees argue, standing exists. Therefore, they assert there is standing. Moreover, they argue, while they might ostensibly be deported for routine immigration violations, the real reason for such deportation would be based upon their participation in the constitutionally protected activity rather than the commission of allegedly routine violations. Finally, they challenge as disingenuous the government's argument that it has tactical reasons to recharge the individual appellees. They note that during the pendency of this appeal, the government added charges against Hamide and Shehadeh based on section 1251(a)(6)(F)(ii), which had not been challenged in the district court. This change, they say, proves that the government has a ready stand-by: invocation of the challenged provisions whenever it may deem that appropriate. 13 Because the individual appellees are not currently charged with violations of the challenged statutory provisions, they must show that the threat of future injury is both real and immediate. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). This standing requirement is not satisfied merely by showing some conjectural or hypothetical injury, O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494, 94 S.Ct. 669, 675, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974), or an injury which is subjective, Laird, 408 U.S. at 13-14, 92 S.Ct. at 2325-26. Moreover,  '[p]ast exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy ... if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects.'  Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102, 103 S.Ct. at 1665 (quoting O'Shea, 414 U.S. at 495-96, 94 S.Ct. at 675-76). 14 We conclude, however, that the individual appellees meet the standing test. It is not necessary that they currently be subject to the challenged provisions in order to have standing; nor need they actually commit the forbidden provisions as a means of showing them to be in the dilemma which the court described in Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 462, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 1217, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974), as the hapless plaintiff between the Scylla of intentionally flouting ... [the] law and the Charybdis of forgoing what he believes to be constitutionally protected activity in order to avoid becoming enmeshed in a criminal proceeding. See also Babbitt v. United Farm Workers National Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301, 2308, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979). Nor is this a case in which the individual appellees' claimed threat of future injury is merely hypothetical or conjectural. Already they have once been charged with the challenged provisions, which charges were dropped, not because they were considered inapplicable, but for tactical reasons. Compare Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. at 42, 91 S.Ct. at 749 (denying standing in part because plaintiffs do not claim that they have ever been threatened with prosecution, that a prosecution is likely, or even that a prosecution is remotely possible). Presumably, then, the individual appellees need not run the risk of the consequences of another violation of the challenged provisions in order to find protection. 15 However, even if they had not already been charged with violating of the challenged provisions, the individual appellees would have standing. The challenged statute, unlike the government conduct challenged in Laird, is regulatory and proscriptive in nature, see 408 U.S. at 11, 92 S.Ct. at 2324, and the penalty for noncompliance is high. See Virginia v. American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc., 484 U.S. 383, 392-93, 108 S.Ct. 636, 642, 98 L.Ed.2d 782 (1988). 4 Moreover, the individual appellees fall within the class of persons whose conduct the statute proscribes, see Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188, 93 S.Ct. 739, 745, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973), and against whom the government has already instituted proceedings under the challenged provisions. See Steffel, 415 U.S. at 459, 94 S.Ct. at 1215. Each case in which the government already has ventured into prosecution underscores the government's willingness to use the challenged provisions against aliens who are considered to be members of the PFLP. Furthermore, if it is true that Hamide and Shehadeh have been charged with the challenged provisions merely as a means of bringing about their deportation (since they have permanent resident status) this lends credence to their argument that the government may yet bring the challenged charges against the individual appellees. Their fears are therefore neither speculative nor imaginary as in Younger, 401 U.S. at 42, 91 S.Ct. at 749. 16 We turn now to the government's argument that the likelihood that the individual appellees are unlikely to be recharged for violations of the challenged provisions because to do so would be administratively inefficient. We do not readily see that the government's refusal to disavow future use of the challenged provisions alone provides standing to the individual appellees. Nevertheless, it is an attitudinal factor the net effect of which would seem to impart some substance to the fears of the individual appellees. See American Booksellers Ass'n, 484 U.S. at 393, 108 S.Ct. at 642 (this alleged danger of the statute is, in large measure, one of self-censorship; a harm that can be realized even without an actual prosecution); Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 494, 85 S.Ct. 1116, 1125, 14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965) (So long as the statute remains available to the State the threat of prosecutions of protected expression is a real and substantial one); NAACP v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1353 (9th Cir.1984). 17 Finally, this case is not an analog of Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 89 S.Ct. 956, 22 L.Ed.2d 113 (1969), which is cited to us as an argument against standing. Zwickler was convicted of violating New York's election laws during his Congressional campaign. While his appeal to the Supreme Court was pending, Zwickler became a judge. The Supreme Court denied review because it appeared unlikely that Zwickler would again be a candidate for Congress. Id. at 109, 89 S.Ct. at 960. Unlike Zwickler's case, the positions of the individual appellees have not changed materially since the government withdrew the ideological charges against them. They are still subject to deportation either because the challenged statute may be invoked, or, alternatively, for routine status violations, and in either case, the two procedures are means of reaching the same result. In any event, on the whole, we cannot say that the cases of the individual appellees are such as to render it unlikely that they would engage in the acts which allegedly rendered them subject to deportation under the challenged provisions. 18 For the above reasons, the individual appellees have standing. We therefore affirm the district court's finding on this issue.