Skip to main content

Search

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 3.1.14 Associational Standing

An organization or group may have standing to sue on its own behalf, to seek judicial relief for injury to itself and to assert its own rights as an organization. Groups may also have standing in a representative or associational capacity, in order to assert and represent the rights of its members. This latter form of standing is an exception to the general prohibition on third-party standing, discussed below.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 3.1.16 Advantages and Disadvantages of Associational Standing

Given that a group asserting representative standing will fare no better than its individual members in establishing the requisite injury, one can fairly ask why associational standing is worth pursuing. The principal advantage of group standing lies in its use to obtain the benefits of a class action apart from the class certification process. Because Legal Services Corporation restrictions prohibit the filing of class actions, associational standing is of particular importance to legal services attorneys.905

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 3.1.17 Organizational Standing

An organization that, in addition to meeting the Article III requirements of causation and redressability, suffers injury-in-fact in its own right—rather than, or in addition to, an injury to the rights of its members—has individual standing as a group.909 When the group asserts an injury to its own interests, the group has standing in its own right as a group, irrespective of any injury to its members.910 Like an individual plaintiff, the group must still comply with Article III standing requir

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 3.2.2 Hardship from Denying Review

The hardship prong of the ripeness test looks at the severity of the consequences that would befall the parties by a decision not to judicially intervene in the dispute. In general, the greater the potential hardship from denying review, the greater the chance the case is ripe. If the plaintiff is able to comply with the challenged statute or regulation without significant cost or loss, then there is less hardship to be endured.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 3.3.3 Voluntary Cessation of Unlawful Conduct

It is not uncommon for legal aid and public interest advocates to encounter a claim from a defendant, such as a government agency, that its actions have rendered the litigation moot. A defendant may not, however, moot a claim for injunctive relief simply by ceasing its allegedly unlawful conduct; a contrary rule would encourage the resumption of unlawful conduct following the dismissal of litigation.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 3.4.4 Issue Exhaustion

Apart from exhaustion of administrative remedies generally, advocates should consider whether they may first need to raise an issue before the agency, in order to later obtain judicial review of that issue, at least where the administrative proceedings might be considered “adversarial.” As the Supreme Court has explained:

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 3.4.7 Issue Preclusion

The Restatement (Second) of Judgments, on which the Supreme Court relies,1220 provides:

When an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties, whether on the same or a different claim.1221

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 5.0 Introduction

This Chapter discusses several bases for suing to enforce rights created by federal law. To sue in federal court, plaintiffs must have a “cause of action.” The term has a special, particularized meaning in federal litigation. Most lawyers use the term “cause of action” synonymously with the term “legal claim” to indicate a client’s legal right that the defendant has violated.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 5.1.7 Does the enactment of a statute by Congress under its Spending Power undermine the enforceability of the statute under Section 1983?

Defendants have argued that legislation enacted under Congress’ spending power, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution generally creates only voluntary programs which the states are free to reject. Consequently, a state’s decision to participate in such a program results only in contractual obligations that cannot rise to the level of being “the supreme law of the land.”1523 Although the issue has not come before the Supreme Court, two circuit courts of appeals have rejected this contention: Antrican v.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 5.1.13 Joint Activity and “Pervasive Entwinement”

Joint activity by a private party and a government agent can also transform the private party into a state actor, where the purpose of the collusion is to violate the federal rights of the plaintiff.1565 Similarly, in Dennis v. Sparks, the Court held that private parties who conspired with a judge to fix a case acted under color of law.1566 A nominally private entity controlled by the state is also a state actor.1567

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 5.1.14 Governmental Creation of a Legal or Procedural Framework

A private party may be engaged in “state action” if the act which deprived federal rights could not have occurred but for the existence of a governmental framework requiring government approval or action. In North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc.1571 the Court found state action in a private party’s invocation of a court-ordered attachment that failed to afford due process to the debtor. Similarly, in Lugar v.