Court Opinion

ID: 9425806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:15:52.557572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:57.678283
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Marshall,
dissenting.
I agree with my Brother Douglas that respondents have standing as citizens to bring this action. I cannot accept the majority’s characterization of respondents’ complaint as alleging only “injury in the abstract” and “ ‘generalized grievances’ about the conduct of the Gov-*239eminent.” Ante, at 217. According to their complaint, respondents are present and former members of the various Armed Forces Reserves
“organized for the purpose of opposing the military-involvement of the United States in Vietnam and of using all lawful means to end that involvement, including efforts by its members individually to persuade the Congress of the United States and all members of the Congress to take all steps necessary and appropriate to end that involvement.”
The specific interest which they thus asserted, and which they alleged had been infringed by violations of the Incompatibility Clause, though doubtless widely shared, is certainly not a “general interest common to all members of the public.” Ex parte Levitt, 302 U. S. 633, 634 (1937). Not all citizens desired to have the Congress take all steps necessary to terminate American involvement in Vietnam, and not all citizens who so desired sought to persuade members of Congress to that end.
Respondents nevertheless had a right under the First Amendment to attempt to persuade Congressmen to end the war in Vietnam. And respondents have alleged a right, under the Incompatibility Clause, to have their arguments considered by Congressmen not subject to a conflict of interest by virtue of their positions in the Armed Forces Reserves. Respondents’ complaint therefore states, in my view, a claim of direct and concrete injury to a judicially cognizable interest. It is a sad commentary on our priorities that a litigant who contends that a violation of a federal statute has interfered with his aesthetic appreciation of natural resources can have that claim heard by a federal court, see United States v. SCRAP, 412 U. S. 669, 687 (1973), while one who contends that a violation of a specific provision of the United *240States Constitution has interfered with the effectiveness of expression protected by the First Amendment is turned away without a hearing on the merits of his claim.
I respectfully dissent.