Opinion ID: 2065552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Denial of Parens Patriae Standing

Text: As earlier stated, the Foreign Governments claim that the Superior Court erroneously concluded that they lacked standing to assert their claims as parens patriae because: (1) there is no logical basis to distinguish between American States (which are allowed parens patriae standing) and foreign governments (which are not), and (2) the Superior Court did not consider decisions by other courts that permit foreign sovereigns to claim parens patriae standing to the same extent as a State. Neither contention, in our view, has merit. As the Superior Court properly recognized, parens patriae standing is reserved for U.S. States which, in certain limited circumstances are permitted by the federal courts to assert claims on behalf of their citizens. [13] But, as the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recognized in Service Employees International Union Health and Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., [14] foreign sovereigns will not be accorded parens patriae standing except in very limited circumstances that are not present here: The nations' assertion that they may proceed in parens patriae is a dubious assertion at best, for as the First Circuit pointed out in Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. DeCoster, 229 F.3d 332, 336 (1st Cir.2000), parens patriae standing should not be recognized in a foreign nation (by contrast with a State in this country) unless there is a clear indication by the Supreme Court or one of the two coordinate branches of government to grant such standing. The nations offer no evidence of such intent. Rather, the doctrine of parens patriae is merely a species of prudential standing . . . and does not create a boundless opportunity for governments to seek recovery for alleged wrongs against them or their residents. See, e.g., Pfizer, Inc. v. Lord, 522 F.2d 612, 616 (8th Cir. 1975). [15] The Foreign Governments argue that because no logical basis exists to distinguish between American States and foreign governments for parens patriae purposes, DeCoster and Service Employees were wrongly decided. That argument is misconceived, because there is a logical basis, which the First Circuit in DeCoster fully explained. In DeCoster, the Court upheld the dismissal of a claim by the Mexican government to enjoin employment discrimination against its nationals. [16] Mexico argued that it should have the same standing that the U.S. Supreme Court accorded to Puerto Rico in Alfred L. Snapp & Son v. Puerto Rico . [17] The DeCoster court found Snapp inapplicable, however, because Puerto Rico, like the fifty American States, had given up certain sovereign rights to become part of the United States. [18] Foreign governments (such as Panama and São Paulo here), on the other hand, retained the full array of sovereign rights that the American States and Puerto Rico had ceded to the United States government. For example, foreign governments may pursue diplomatic avenues of redress, such as entering into a treaty, whereas States cannot. If it were thought desirable to treat foreign governments for standing purposes equally to American States, such remedies are committed to the Executive and to the Congress. [19] As the First Circuit put it, courts should not impinge on the Executive's treaty-making prerogatives or . . . assume that courts have the institutional competence to perform functions assigned elsewhere by the Constitution. [20] Nor is there merit to the Foreign Governments' second argumentthat the Superior Court improperly disregarded holdings by other courts that foreign sovereigns may claim parens patriae standing to the same extent as a state. [21] In support of that position the Foreign Governments cite only two cases. One of them, Texas v. American Tobacco Co., [22] is totally off-point, because the court there held that the State of Texasnot foreign governmentscan assert quasi sovereign interests in United States courts. The Foreign Governments also rely upon a footnote in a case decided by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Coordination Council for North American Affairs v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. [23] To the extent that decision can be said to support the Foreign Government's position, it was overruled in 2001 by the D.C. Circuit in Service Employees. We conclude, for these reasons, that the Superior Court correctly held that the Foreign Governments lack standing to sue as parens patriae. We further note that the parens patriae issue, however decided, is immaterial to the outcome of this appeal. Even if the Foreign Governments were found to have parens patriae standing, they would still be required (as the Superior Court in this case, and the D.C. Circuit in Service Employees recognized) to assert all the elements of a prima facie tort case in the same manner as the citizens on whose behalf they are acting. [24] Accordingly, the issue of determinative import, to which we next turn, is whether the Foreign Governments have stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.