7 ms·

Does a plaintiff need to suffer injury if their constitutional rights were violated? Wouldn't this be closer to a class action since there's broad injury and v

by graiz 11y ago

Does a plaintiff need to suffer injury if their constitutional rights were violated? Wouldn't this be closer to a class action since there's broad injury and violation?

pdabbadabba 11y ago
> Does a plaintiff need to suffer injury if their constitutional rights were violated? Yes, they do. Even in a class action the class plaintiffs need to be able to show that they were injured. This stems from longstanding judicial interpretation of the "case or controversy" clause of Article III of the U.S. Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  The US constitution allows for the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. No monetary injury required.
  - pdabbadabba 11y ago
    Article III specifically defines the powers of the judiciary, and these powers do not include hearing petitions. It's an interesting question what substance the Petition Clause has. Unfortunately, it looks these days like it doesn't have much, since the First Amendment has never been interpreted to give petitions any binding legal effect. But I think it is clearly correct that the judicial branch, at least, does not have the power to adjudicate them under Article III. Edit: By the way, an 'injury' does not necessarily have to be a monetary injury to support standing, though the law about what sorts of injuries count is exceedingly difficult and, perhaps, incoherent at the margins. One interesting wrinkle is that courts assume a fairly concrete definition of "injury", but also permit Congress to expand the applicable conception of injury (within some limits) in particular situations by statute. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife is a good entry point to this area of law, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/504/555 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/504/555 (I do not think that the opinion itself is very good, but its discussion of other cases is helpful.) Edit: Removed an imprecise first sentence.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      The judiciary should be able to point to the alternative venue then.
      - pdabbadabba 11y ago
        Unsatisfying as this response may be, I think they would probably tell you--as courts have repeatedly told frustrated plaintiffs since the birth of the Republic--that this other venue is the political process.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        The alternative targets of such petitions directed at the federal government that the courts are not empowered under the Constitution to address are: 1) The Congress, 2) The President (and executive branch more generally), 3) Insofar as the former two entities are Constitutionally prohibited from redressing the grievance raised satisfactorily and/or choose to exercise their discretionary power to not do so, the State governments, who can initiate Constitutional changes which may resolve the issue. It is, however, not a Constitutional obligation of the federal judiciary to inform people of this in response to lawsuits that are outside of the power of the judiciary to resolve (though, its not uncommon for them to do so, at least as far as pointing to the first two alternatives.)
        jsprogrammer 11y ago
        >"the courts are not empowered" You are now the second person to make this claim. It's not true. Specifically, the courts are empowered to hear such petitions by Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution: >The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > You are now the second person to make this claim. I didn't make any claim about the courts being empowered or not empowered to hear particular cases, which is why you had to cut out a small phrase from the middle of the sentence out of context to respond to with your irrelevancy. I made a claim about the parts of governments that can be petitioned for things that the judiciary is not empowered to resolve, without any discussion of what the judiciary is empowered to resolve. (The question of the correctness of the well-established legal principle that the existence of a "Case" requires the allegation of a concrete, particularized, redressable injury is perhaps an interesting discussion, but not one which I made any claim regarding.)
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > The US constitution allows for the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Yes, it does. And you are free to petition the government, either in general or any of its particular branches, for redress of grievances. However, the 1st Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances does not grant the federal government, either in general or any of its particular branches, any additional powers not already provided to it elsewhere in the Constitution to provide redress of those grievances. Which is, I would think, a good thing: while you might prefer something more of the judiciary in this case, you probably don't want a blank check where just because someone is entitled under the First Amendment to complain to the government, suddenly the government is granted unlimited power to deal with that complaint.

by graiz 11y ago

Does a plaintiff need to suffer injury if their constitutional rights were violated? Wouldn't this be closer to a class action since there's broad injury and violation?

pdabbadabba 11y ago

> Does a plaintiff need to suffer injury if their constitutional rights were violated? Yes, they do. Even in a class action the class plaintiffs need to be able to show that they were injured. This stems from longstanding judicial interpretation of the "case or controversy" clause of Article III of the U.S. Constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause

jsprogrammer 11y ago
The US constitution allows for the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. No monetary injury required.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  Article III specifically defines the powers of the judiciary, and these powers do not include hearing petitions. It's an interesting question what substance the Petition Clause has. Unfortunately, it looks these days like it doesn't have much, since the First Amendment has never been interpreted to give petitions any binding legal effect. But I think it is clearly correct that the judicial branch, at least, does not have the power to adjudicate them under Article III. Edit: By the way, an 'injury' does not necessarily have to be a monetary injury to support standing, though the law about what sorts of injuries count is exceedingly difficult and, perhaps, incoherent at the margins. One interesting wrinkle is that courts assume a fairly concrete definition of "injury", but also permit Congress to expand the applicable conception of injury (within some limits) in particular situations by statute. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife is a good entry point to this area of law, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/504/555 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/504/555 (I do not think that the opinion itself is very good, but its discussion of other cases is helpful.) Edit: Removed an imprecise first sentence.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    The judiciary should be able to point to the alternative venue then.
    - pdabbadabba 11y ago
      Unsatisfying as this response may be, I think they would probably tell you--as courts have repeatedly told frustrated plaintiffs since the birth of the Republic--that this other venue is the political process.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      The alternative targets of such petitions directed at the federal government that the courts are not empowered under the Constitution to address are: 1) The Congress, 2) The President (and executive branch more generally), 3) Insofar as the former two entities are Constitutionally prohibited from redressing the grievance raised satisfactorily and/or choose to exercise their discretionary power to not do so, the State governments, who can initiate Constitutional changes which may resolve the issue. It is, however, not a Constitutional obligation of the federal judiciary to inform people of this in response to lawsuits that are outside of the power of the judiciary to resolve (though, its not uncommon for them to do so, at least as far as pointing to the first two alternatives.)
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        >"the courts are not empowered" You are now the second person to make this claim. It's not true. Specifically, the courts are empowered to hear such petitions by Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution: >The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > You are now the second person to make this claim. I didn't make any claim about the courts being empowered or not empowered to hear particular cases, which is why you had to cut out a small phrase from the middle of the sentence out of context to respond to with your irrelevancy. I made a claim about the parts of governments that can be petitioned for things that the judiciary is not empowered to resolve, without any discussion of what the judiciary is empowered to resolve. (The question of the correctness of the well-established legal principle that the existence of a "Case" requires the allegation of a concrete, particularized, redressable injury is perhaps an interesting discussion, but not one which I made any claim regarding.)
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The US constitution allows for the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Yes, it does. And you are free to petition the government, either in general or any of its particular branches, for redress of grievances. However, the 1st Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances does not grant the federal government, either in general or any of its particular branches, any additional powers not already provided to it elsewhere in the Constitution to provide redress of those grievances. Which is, I would think, a good thing: while you might prefer something more of the judiciary in this case, you probably don't want a blank check where just because someone is entitled under the First Amendment to complain to the government, suddenly the government is granted unlimited power to deal with that complaint.