Federal Deception Law: M.1 The Need for a State-by-State Standing Analysis for TCPA Claims
This appendix provides links to a state-by-state analysis of state court standing requirements.
This appendix provides links to a state-by-state analysis of state court standing requirements.
To assist TCPA practitioners in deciding whether to bring cases in state or federal court, this appendix links to a state-by-state analysis of state court standing requirements found in NCLC’s Consumer Class Actions
In Illinois, lack of standing is an affirmative defense, which is the defendant’s burden to plead and prove.204 The state supreme court has specifically rejected the federal rule stated in Lujan and other U.S. Supreme Court decisions that standing is jurisdictional and a threshold issue that the plaintiff must plead and prove.205 Standing is part of the common law in Illinois.206
The Indiana Constitution does not impose a case or controversy restriction on the judicial power of the state.217 However, the Indiana Supreme Court treats the state constitution’s division of governmental powers into three separate branches—legislative, executive, and judicial—as performing a similar function.218 The purpose of its standing doctrine, along with the corollary doctrines of mootness and ripeness, is to ensure the resolution of real issues through vigorous litigation, not to engage
Iowa’s Constitution does not include a case or controversy requirement.
The Kansas Supreme Court has tied its standing doctrine to the provision of the Kansas Constitution that grants the “judicial power” of the state to the courts.244 It defines the “judicial power” as “the power to hear, consider and determine controversies between rival litigants,” and considers an actual controversy to be a necessary precondition to exercise of this power.245
The Louisiana Constitution does not include a limitation comparable to the U.S.
The Maine Constitution does not include a case or controversy requirement, so the state supreme court’s standing jurisdiction is prudential, i.e., based on judicial self-restraint, rather than constitutional.276 Standing relates to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and should be resolved before the court reaches the merits.277 A lack of standing can be raised at any time, including during an appeal.278
Maryland’s standing doctrine is a common law rule.284 The requirement of standing “is designed to ensure that a party seeking relief has a sufficiently cognizable stake in the outcome so as to present a court with a dispute that is capable of judicial resolution.”285 “Under Maryland common law, standing to bring a judicial action generally depends on whether one is aggrieved, which means whether a plaintiff has an interest such that he or she is personally and specifically affected in a way diff
In Minnesota, standing is defined as the requirement that a party have a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court.313 Standing is a prerequisite to a court’s exercise of jurisdiction314 and can be raised at any time.315 Minnesota’s standing doctrine is not based on the state constitution, but arises from the state supreme court’s concerns about justiciability.316
Standing in Mississippi is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised sua sponte by the court or at any time by a party.323 The state supreme court has characterized its standing doctrine as “quite liberal”324 and as “more liberal” than Article III.325 The basic question in a standing case is “whether the particular plaintiff had a right to judicial enforcement of a legal duty of the defendant.”326
Standing is a jurisdictional question in Missouri.333 While in at least one decision the state supreme court has referred to its standing doctrine as prudential, i.e., based on judicial self-restraint,334 a 1986 decision ties it to the state constitution’s grant of jurisdiction to the courts over “all cases and matters, civil and criminal.”335
Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Montana Constitution does not limit the jurisdiction of courts to cases and controversies.
Nebraska’s constitution does not include a restriction analogous to the U.S. Constitution’s cases and controversies limitation.355 Nonetheless, a party must have standing before a court can exercise jurisdiction, and either party or the court can raise a lack of standing at any time during the proceeding.356
New Hampshire’s constitution does not include a case or controversy clause.
New Jersey courts employ “liberal rules of standing.”391 The state supreme court “sweepingly reject[s] procedural frustrations in favor of ‘just and expeditious determinations on the ultimate merits.’”392 The state’s rules of procedure “were not designed to create an injustice and added complications but, on the contrary, were devised and promulgated for the purpose of promoting reasonable uniformity in the expeditious and even administration of justice.”393
North Dakota’s standing doctrine requires a litigant to have “in an individual or representative capacity some real interest in the cause of action, or a legal or equitable right, title, or interest in the subject matter of the controversy.”436 The analysis requires “a two-fold inquiry: (1) plaintiffs must suffer some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action, and (2) the asserted harm must not be a generalized grievance shared by all or a large class of citizens . .