Warth v. Seldin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Warth v. Seldin<tr style="text-align: center;"><td colspan="2">Image:Seal of the United States Supreme Court.png Supreme Court of the United States</td></tr> | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argued March 17, 1975 Decided June 25, 1975 | ||||||
| ||||||
| Holding | ||||||
| Petitioners lack standing to sue when not directly injured by the defendant. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
| Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger Associate Justices: William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist | ||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority by: Powell Joined by: Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Rehnquist Dissent by: Douglas Dissent by: Brennan Joined by: White, Marshall <tr style="text-align: center; background: #6699FF;"><th colspan="2">Laws applied</tr></th><td>Article III of the U.S. Constitution</td> |
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reviewed the concept of judicial standing and affirmed that if the plaintiffs lacked standing, they could not maintain a case against the defendants.
Contents |
[edit] Facts
The plaintiffs brought action against the town of Penfield, New York, a suburb of Rochester, and against members of the Zoning, Planning, and Town Boards of Penfield, alleging that Penfield's zoning ordinances intentionally and wrongly excluded persons of low and moderate income from living there.
The not-for-profit housing organization Metro-Act of Rochester joined with several Rochester taxpayers as well as low and moderate income individuals of various racial and ethnic backgrounds were considered jointly as party-plaintiffs to this action. However, the United States District Court dismissed the case, citing that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. The United States Court of Appeals confirmed the dismissal.
[edit] Issue
The court was tasked to determine if the rules of standing should be considered part of the 'case or controversy' clause of Article III of the Constitution or, apart from that, if the court can hear cases on "generalized grievances" or in the interest of third parties where none of the complaintants have standing.
[edit] Result
The court found that as none of the plaintiffs could demonstrate any injury actually done to them by the defendants, the plaintiffs were third parties to the issue and had no standing to sue. The plaintiff's descriptions of their own meager financial situations and subsequent inability to live in Penfield were found by the Court to be the consequence of the economics and housing market of the area rather than any wrong doing by the defendants.
