đșđž
Constitutional Law âą Justiciability Doctrines
CONLAW#003
Legal Definition
Generally, a plaintiff cannot assert the claims of others who are not before the court. However, there are 2 exceptions: (1) where the plaintiff and the injured party have a close or special relationship; or (2) the injured third party cannot assert their own rights without difficulty.
Ultimately, to have third party standing, the plaintiff must also have standing.
Ultimately, to have third party standing, the plaintiff must also have standing.
Plain English Explanation
Third-party standing is a rule that generally stops people from suing on behalf of someone else. The idea is that only the person who is directly affected should bring the case to court. However, there are important exceptions to this rule.
First, if the person suing has a close relationship with the injured person, they might be allowed to sue on their behalf. For example, a parent can often sue on behalf of their child because of their close relationship. Second, if the injured person canât easily assert their own rightsâmaybe because theyâre unable to or it's just too difficultâsomeone else can step in to help them by bringing the case to court.
However, itâs crucial that the person who wants to sue also has standing, meaning they must show that they are somehow involved or affected by the issue too. This ensures that courts deal with real problems that affect the people involved.
First, if the person suing has a close relationship with the injured person, they might be allowed to sue on their behalf. For example, a parent can often sue on behalf of their child because of their close relationship. Second, if the injured person canât easily assert their own rightsâmaybe because theyâre unable to or it's just too difficultâsomeone else can step in to help them by bringing the case to court.
However, itâs crucial that the person who wants to sue also has standing, meaning they must show that they are somehow involved or affected by the issue too. This ensures that courts deal with real problems that affect the people involved.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob is the president of an organization called "Citizens for Privacy," which advocates for individuals' privacy rights. The state of Hypofornia passes a law requiring organizations to disclose their membership lists, which Bob believes violates the privacy of the members. The members are too afraid to file a lawsuit themselves because it would expose their identities, so Bob decides to sue on their behalf. Result: Bob may have third-party standing because: (1) Close Relationship: As the president of the organization, Bob has a strong and direct relationship with the members. This is similar to the NAACPâs standing in NAACP v. Alabama, where the NAACP could assert the rights of its members to protect their identities. (2) Inability to Sue: The members cannot assert their own rights without risking exposure, which makes it difficult for them to bring the case themselves. (3) Standing: Bobâs organization is directly affected by the law, giving him a vested interest in the case.
Hypo 2: Bob runs a chain of liquor stores in New Hypoland. The state passes a law that prohibits the sale of beer to males under 21 but allows females under 21 to purchase beer. Bob believes this law is discriminatory against his male customers and decides to challenge the law in court on their behalf. Result: Bob may have third-party standing because: (1) Close Relationship: Bob, as a vendor who regularly interacts with and serves the affected group (males under 21), has a substantial connection to the parties impacted by the law. This is analogous to the vendor in Craig v. Boren, who had standing to challenge a similar law on behalf of males under 21. (2) Inability to Sue: The young males may face difficulties in bringing the case themselves, either due to lack of resources or fear of legal complexities. (3) Standing: The law directly impacts Bobâs business operations and potential revenue, giving him a legitimate interest in the outcome.
Hypo 3: Bobâs son Timmy is denied access to a public school because of a new zoning law in Hypofornia. Timmy is too young to bring a lawsuit himself, so Bob sues the school district on Timmyâs behalf. Result: Bob likely has third-party standing because: (1) Close Relationship: Bob is Timmyâs father, which is a close familial relationship. (2) Inability to Sue: Timmy is a minor and cannot assert his own rights in court. (3) Standing: As Timmyâs parent, Bob is directly affected by the schoolâs decision, especially regarding his sonâs education.
Hypo 2: Bob runs a chain of liquor stores in New Hypoland. The state passes a law that prohibits the sale of beer to males under 21 but allows females under 21 to purchase beer. Bob believes this law is discriminatory against his male customers and decides to challenge the law in court on their behalf. Result: Bob may have third-party standing because: (1) Close Relationship: Bob, as a vendor who regularly interacts with and serves the affected group (males under 21), has a substantial connection to the parties impacted by the law. This is analogous to the vendor in Craig v. Boren, who had standing to challenge a similar law on behalf of males under 21. (2) Inability to Sue: The young males may face difficulties in bringing the case themselves, either due to lack of resources or fear of legal complexities. (3) Standing: The law directly impacts Bobâs business operations and potential revenue, giving him a legitimate interest in the outcome.
Hypo 3: Bobâs son Timmy is denied access to a public school because of a new zoning law in Hypofornia. Timmy is too young to bring a lawsuit himself, so Bob sues the school district on Timmyâs behalf. Result: Bob likely has third-party standing because: (1) Close Relationship: Bob is Timmyâs father, which is a close familial relationship. (2) Inability to Sue: Timmy is a minor and cannot assert his own rights in court. (3) Standing: As Timmyâs parent, Bob is directly affected by the schoolâs decision, especially regarding his sonâs education.
