FOIA provides that courts have “jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). An agency’s “withholding” of such records from a requester in violation of FOIA therefore provides the “injury” that the OP asked about.
As explained by the third Circuit:
McDonnell v. US, 4 F.3d 1227, 1238-38 (3rd Cir 1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Thank you. That was the factual answer I was asking for.
Actually, the questions you put into words were answered by half a dozen people. If you wanted case law you could have asked for it at any time.
I should note that my post only addresses lawsuits under the FOIA. Obviously, not all lawsuits brought by organizations are based on claims of FOIA violations, and the issue of standing in those cases would require a different analysis. As other posters have mentioned, injuries to constitutional, statutory, and common law rights are sufficient to provide a plaintiff with standing in federal courts. For example, complaints filed under the FOIA would fall under the second category (violation of statutory rights).
But the Supreme Court has recognized other injuries beyond those three, and the question of what constitutes an “injury” sufficient for an association to have standing is a complicated one that continues to evolve. You see these sorts of questions come up frequently with environmental cases. In Massachusetts v. EPA, for example, the Supreme Court found that states had standing to sue the EPA based on alleged harms resulting from global warming caused by the EPA’s failure to promulgate regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions. On the other end, you have cases like Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, where the Court found that the environmental groups who brought the lawsuit did not have standing because the alleged harm resulting from the extinction of protected species was too speculative (though Lujan may be a special case because it also raised questions of Congress’s limits in creating standing through statute).
No, some people gave their opinion, in a forum dedicated to factual questions and answers.
And that’s ALL I will say in this forum.
Then it was a bad idea to look for legal opinions in a forum dedicated to factual questions and answers.
LOL.
Your entire post (#3 in this thread) was opinion, not facts.
Don’t LOL me. If you want to make this personal, at least take it the appropriate forum.
LOL. You funny.
There’s an entirely 'nother situation where seeming unaffected parties gain standing, not yet mentioned in this thread that I can see.
IANAL (and never regretted it), so I can’t claim to have all the details quite right, but here are the basics:
Some laws appear to be written that explicitly give standing to parties that are otherwise uninvolved. This seems to happen a lot in civil rights legislation. I don’t know if this happens much in Federal law, or much in many State laws. It seems to happen here in California, at least.
You may recall, some years ago, there was a big “Political Correctness” stink about the words that real estate and rental advertisers could use in their advertisements. It was (and is) illegal to discriminate, e.g, “Whites only need apply” or “Irish/Jews/Blacks/whatever need not apply”. It got crazy: If you wrote “Near schools”, you were “steering” childless couples away; if you wrote “Great ocean views” you were discriminating in favor of the sighted and against the blind; if you wrote “Walking distance to shopping/wherever” you were discriminating in favor the the abled and against the disabled. Real estate lawyers published big lists of “forbidden” words (in red); “use with caution words” (in yellow); and “safe words” (in green) – I used to have such a list, on a laminated plastic card.
(ETA: IIRC, this was a nationwide phenomenon, not just in California. And I don’t know if the laws explicitly made anyone-and-everyone a plaintiff with standing, or if the courts “discovered” that in the concept that the laws were for the benefit of all society and not just for the benefit of aggrieved individuals.)
Okay, so what about the question in this thread? There arose cadres of self-appointed civil-rights arm-chair lawyers (who may have been actual lawyers) who scoured real estate and rental ads in the classified sections looking for forbidden words, and filing lawsuits (some would say, nuisance lawsuits) against violations that they found. The suits may have been mostly junk, but they cleaned up by collecting settlement money from defendants who found it cheaper to settle than fight the suits.
And where did those cadres of self-appointed civil-rights lawyers get their standing? Because somewhere in some anti-discrimination laws, it said that anyone could bring those suits on behalf of the “public good”. You see, discrimination wasn’t held to be hurtful only to those individuals who were discriminated against, but rather, was held to be hurtful to civil society in general. Thus, anyone and everyone had standing.
Here in Stanislaus County, CA., there has been something very similar going on for several years now. They file ADA violation lawsuits by the hundreds (often with an actual disabled shill as the named plaintiff, so maybe not exactly what OP is questioning); often at places those alleged plaintiffs have never even visited; often over trivialities.
Anyway, here are three articles I just googled up on the subject, two in Stanislaus or surrounding counties; one in Bay Area counties:
Wave of disability lawsuits threatens small businesses in Stanislaus County
Lawsuits fail to satisfy either side of ADA coin
Serial ADA lawsuit filer striking Bay Area
I also noticed a few headlines that seem to suggest that, at long last, the state legislature and governor are taking some baby steps to crack down on the problem:
Governor signs bill to limit lawsuits, allow ADA fixes
Now, in these ADA cases, it seems that the plaintiff’s lawyers actually have a named disabled plaintiff, but they are claimed to be just shills. Now, I wonder if a lot of those cases with ACLU, SPLC, etc., might work similarly: The organization actively recruiting aggrieved plaintiffs, possibly in mass production numbers, to support their suits. To be sure, flaming liberal that I am, that’s fine with me (well, sort of) when ACLU or SPLC does it – but if that’s true (is it?) it does seem sleazy.
Moderator Note
That’s enough.
Take it to the Pit if you want, but no more of this in GQ.
This does not appear to me to be factually correct. He used the phrase “in my experience” which is very different from “in my opinion.” His experience has proved in subsequent posts to be correct. And in that post he gave a cite that corroborated his experience.
You made a statement in your OP, “The ACLU, itself, hasn’t suffered any injury.” that was itself factually wrong. Posters had to patiently explain to you how the court system works just to get to a point where your questions could be answered.
Florida House Bill 989 gives standing to every adult in a county, whether or not they have children in schools, to complain about any textbook, library book, or instructional material and force a hearing officer to rule on whether it can be allowed. The public comments submitted make it clear this is to battle modern claims about science.
Damage? Injury? Standing? You don’t get to decide those things.
Perhaps the confusion is with when the ACLU or NCAAP are extremely active in a court case, but are not technically a plaintiff … for example, the NCAAP actively recruited folks to file lawsuit claiming racial segregation in Topeka, KS public schools was harmful … Oliver Brown was the most compelling of the cases and thus we have the Brown vs Board of Education ruling … lawyers, [del]guns[/del] and money were the NCAAP’s …
Actually, MOST legal wranglings don’t depend on proving injury. That test bar is only for certain kinds of cases, such as defamation lawsuits by public figures. Even then, it’s not a bar to ATTEMPTING to bring a case, it’s only a bar to WINNING.
In the federal system, every single case requires that the parties have standing, so they must at least have alleged an injury.
Every single time.
This requirement arises from the constitutional language in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1 which limits the judicial power to cases in which an actual controversy exists.