Affirmation of Strict Standing Requirements in Temporary Executive Orders: Allen v. Whitmer

Introduction

The case of Allen and Cincinnatus, LLC v. Gretchen Whitmer addresses the constitutionality of executive actions taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, it scrutinizes the standing of plaintiffs challenging a temporary executive order that restricted intrastate travel within Michigan. This commentary explores the background of the case, key legal issues, the court’s analysis, and the broader implications for constitutional litigation involving executive authority during emergencies.

Summary of the Judgment

In July 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Lyn Allen and Cincinnatus, LLC against Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. The plaintiffs challenged Executive Order 2020-42, which imposed travel restrictions within Michigan to curb the spread of COVID-19. They sought nominal damages and declaratory relief, alleging violations of substantive due process and equal protection under both the U.S. and Michigan Constitutions. The appellate court upheld the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, primarily focusing on the plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate adequate standing by not proving a concrete injury directly resulting from the executive order.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court extensively referenced key precedents to evaluate standing:

• LUJAN v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE (504 U.S. 555, 1992): Established the three-part test for standing, requiring an injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability.
• Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (141 S.Ct. 792, 2021): Clarified that a request for nominal damages satisfies the redressability requirement when a legal right has been violated.
• Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (568 U.S. 398, 2013): Emphasized that speculative fears do not constitute injury-in-fact.
• Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (136 S.Ct. 1540, 2016): Elaborated on the necessity for injuries to be concrete and particularized.
• MEDIMMUNE, INC. v. GENENTECH, INC. (549 U.S. 118, 2007): Discussed the standards for challenging a threatened government action without incurring liability.

These precedents collectively reinforce the judiciary's stringent requirements for establishing standing, preventing the courts from engaging in advisory opinions on abstract legal questions.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the concept of standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates that only actual cases or controversies can be adjudicated. To establish standing, plaintiffs must demonstrate:

1. Injury-in-Fact: A concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent.
2. Causation: A direct link between the injury and the defendant's conduct.
3. Redressability: A likelihood that the court can remedy the injury.

The district court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, and the appellate court affirmed this decision. The appellate court particularly emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a concrete injury. Their claims were based on the hypothetical threat of enforcement rather than any actual penalty or limitation experienced. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not provide evidence of being penalized, deterred by enforcement, or taking specific actions to exercise their rights, rendering their injury speculative.

Moreover, while Uzuegbunam expanded the redressability aspect by recognizing nominal damages as sufficient when a legal right is violated, it did not alleviate the need for plaintiffs to establish the other standing elements, which Allen and Cincinnatus failed to do.

Impact

This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the integrity of the standing doctrine. By reaffirming stringent standing requirements, the court ensures that only plaintiffs with genuine, personalized injuries can challenge governmental actions. This decision has significant implications for future litigation involving temporary executive measures, especially those enacted during public health emergencies or other crises. It signals that challenges to such orders must be grounded in tangible harm rather than speculative or potential injuries, thereby limiting the scope for broad, abstract constitutional challenges.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The affirmation of the district court's dismissal in Allen and Cincinnatus, LLC v. Whitmer reinforces the judiciary's rigorous standards for standing in constitutional challenges. By requiring plaintiffs to present concrete and personal injuries, the courts prevent the misuse of judicial resources for abstract disputes. This decision highlights the balance between allowing individuals to seek redress for legitimate grievances and maintaining the limits of judicial intervention in governmental policymaking, especially during unprecedented crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. Moving forward, litigants must ensure that their claims meet the established standing criteria to successfully navigate constitutional litigation.