Legal Document

127 S. Ct. 1194 (2007) Keith LANCE et al. v. Mike COFFMAN, Colorado Secretary of State. No. 06-641. Supreme Court United States. March 5, 2007. *1195 Michael A. Carvin, Louis K. Fisher, Jones Day, Washington, DC, Brian J. Murray, Chicago, IL, Brett R. Lilly, Counsel Record, John Zakhem, Doyle, Suhre & LLC, Denver, CO, for Appellants. PER CURIAM. The Elections Clause the States Constitution provides that "Manner holding Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to Places chusing Senators." Art. I, § 4, cl. 1 (emphasis added). When legislators were unable redraw congressional districts after 2000 census accommodate an additional Representative, a state court did it them. See Beauprez Avalos, 42 P.3d 642 (Colo. 2002) (en banc). legislature was able pass redistricting plan 2003, which Colorado's Governor signed into law. Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann. 2-1-101. *1196 attorney general, however, filed original action enjoin secretary from implementing this new plan, noting Article V, 44, limits once per census. General Assembly intervened defend its plan. granted injunction, "judicially-created are just binding permanent created Assembly," court-drawn must remain effect until next decennial People ex rel. Salazar Davidson, 79 1221, 1231 (2003) banc), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1093, 124 2228, 159 L. Ed. 2d 260 (2004). further held result not offend Constitution. P.3d, 1232. Immediately decided, four citizensnone whom had participated Salazarfiled instant Federal District Court. They argued Constitution, interpreted Court, violates their rights under Clause. initially determined lacked jurisdiction hear suit light Rooker-Feldman doctrine, we vacated remanded proceedings. Lance Dennis, 546 459, 126 1198, 163 1059 (2006) (per curiam). On remand, citizen-plaintiffs standing bring challenge. 444 F. Supp. 1149, 1154-1155 (2006). went on, hold barred issue preclusion because plaintiffs "stand privity with who on losing side litigation. F.Supp.2d, 1161. concurring judge concluded appellants sue first place. Id., 1162 (Porfilio, J., result). Plaintiffs appeal again. courts determine they have before proceeding merits. Steel Co. Citizens Better Environment, 523 83, 94-95, 118 1003, 140 210 (1998).[*] III federal "Cases" "Controversies." One component case-or-controversy requirement is standing, requires plaintiff demonstrate now-familiar elements injury fact, causation, redressability. Lujan Defenders Wildlife, 504 555, 560-561, 112 2130, 119 351 (1992). "We consistently raising only generally available grievance about governmentclaiming harm his every citizen's interest proper application laws, seeking relief no more directly tangibly benefits him than does public largedoes case controversy." 573-574, 2130. also DaimlerChrysler Corp. Cuno, 547 ___, 1854, 1862, 164 589 (refusing create exception general prohibition taxpayer challenges tax spending decisions, observing *1197 has been rejected "because alleged `concrete particularized,' instead `suffers some indefinite way common people generally'" (citation omitted)). Our refusal serve forum generalized grievances lengthy pedigree. In Fairchild Hughes, 258 126, 274, 66 499 (1922), example, citizen sued Attorney challenge procedures Nineteenth Amendment ratified. We dismissed "not within meaning ... III." 129, 274. sought assert "only right, possessed citizen, require Government administered according law moneys wasted." Ibid. "Obviously," held, "this right entitle private institute [a suit] courts." 129-130, Similarly, Ex parte Levitt, 302 633, 58 1, 82 493 (1937) curiam), claiming Justice Black's appointment contravened Constitution's Ineligibility Clause, 6, 2. found petitioner "other member bar Court." U.S., 634, 1. That enough. To observed, "a all members public." Frothingham Mellon, decided Massachusetts 262 447, 488, 43 597, 67 1078 (1923) (taxpayer cannot predicated upon "suffers generally"). Cf. Tyler Judges Registration, 179 405, 406, 21 206, 45 252 (1900) ("[E]ven he prosecutes benefit [the plaintiff] aver peculiar himself, distinguished great body fellow citizens"). A pair recent cases illustrates point. Richardson, 418 166, 94 2940, 41 678 (1974), challenged Government's failure disclose certain CIA expenditures violation Accounts regular Statement Account Receipts Expenditures Money published time." 9, 7. Relying claim "generalized grievance" "plainly undifferentiated `common public.'" 176-177, 2940. id., 191, 2940 (Powell, concurring) ("The power recognized Marbury Madison, Cranch 137, 2 60 (1803), potent one. Its prudent use seems me incompatible unlimited notions standing"). same day, Schlesinger Reservists Comm. Stop War, 208, 2925, 706 addressed Incompatibility "no Person Office States, Member either House during Continuance Office." Citizen-taxpayers brought lawsuit contending Members military Reserves violated This lack standing. It "reaffirm[ed] Levitt kind *1198 here public, necessarily abstract nature citizens share." 220, 2925. Refusing entertain ensures "there real need exercise judicial review" particular case, helps guarantee fashion remedies broader required precise facts court's ruling would applied." 221-222, short, nature. parallels Fairchild, progeny. voters. Three days issued decision Salazar, complaint alleging "Article 44 Clause] depriving responsibility draw districts." 379 1117, 1122 (2005). discussion above, problem allegation should obvious: allege lawspecifically Clausehas followed. precisely undifferentiated, conduct government refused countenance past. quite different sorts injuries voting where See, e.g., Baker Carr, 369 186, 207-208, 691, 7 663 (1962). Because particularized stake litigation, claim. two decisions construing term "Legislature" do contradict holding. Each these relator behalf rather acting own behalf, here. Smiley Holm, 184 Minn. 647, 238 N.W. 792 (1931) rev'd sub nom. 285 355, 52 397, 76 795 (1932); Ohio Davis Hildebrant, 241 565, 36 708, 1172 (1916). neither address whether "concrete particularized" sufficient satisfy requirements III. judgment therefore part, instructions dismiss affirm Court's dismissal Petition so ordered. NOTES [*] prior violate principle concerns district subject-matter jurisdiction, Exxon Mobil Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 280, 291, 125 1517, 161 454 (2005), unyielding jurisdictional hierarchy," Ruhrgas AG Marathon Oil Co., 526 574, 578, 1563, 143 760 (1999).

Classification Label: 8