Allen V. Wright (1984): Limits, Standing

• The IRS holds certain “charitable institutions” are tax-exempt, and contributions to those institutions tax-deductible. In this action, a class of Af. Am. parents alleged that the IRS was not complying with its obligation to investigate potentially discriminatory private schools and deny tax-exempt status. The Court dismissed the action for lack of standing.

• Majority: O’CONNOR: The Court rejected that the class was injured by the aid to discriminatory private schools, and also rejected the assertion that the tax exemptions impair the ability to have segregated schools. “This Court has repeatedly held that an asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer jurisdiction on a federal court.” Neither do they have standing to “litigate their claim based on the stigmatizing injury often caused by racial discrimination” because the class was not “personally denied equal treatment.”

Lujan V. Defenders of Wildlife (1975): Limits, Standing

• The facts of this case are fairly insignificant. The important outcome of this case is the culmination of a minimum standard for determining STANDING.

• Majority: SCALIA: Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements: 1) The Plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” – an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical’” 2) There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of – the injury has to be “fairly … traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not… the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.” 3) It must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.”

Missouri V. Jenkins (II) (1990): Limit, Scope of remedy

• The Kansas City School district and a class of students sued the state for allowing the District to become rundown. The district court realigned the district as defendant and said that the district violated Brown v. Bd. Ed. The Court ordered improvements and a tax to pay for them.

• Majority: WHITE: the district judge raised a local property tax, which was too intrusive a remedy, instead the court should have enjoined the operation of the state laws that interfered with the school district’s efforts to raise taxes. Such an injunction would be proper under Art. III and the 10^th A., because the Court had repeatedly ruled that the Federal courts could issue writs of mandamus to compel local gov. to levy taxes to support their debt obligations. However, When a constitutional justification existed, courts had the authority to order tax increases despite statutory limitations. The Court reasoned that "[t]o hold otherwise would fail to take account of the obligations of local governments, under the Supremacy Clause, to fulfill the requirements that the Constitution imposes on them."

Missouri V Jenkins (III) (1995): Limits Jurisdiction

• The court elevated two other issues in Jenkins that were previously denied. A narrow Majority (led by REHNQUIST) ruled that the district court’s efforts to attract white students to the school district were beyond the scope of the constitutional violation of the school district. The court remanded the issue for evaluation of the scope of it’s remedial jurisdiction under Freeman v. Pitts.

• Justice THOMAS said there was nothing constitutionally questionable about all black schools.

• The dissenters (STEVENS, GINSBURG, BREYER, SOUTER) all say that the district court is battling centuries of “entrenched official discrimination.

*** This case is set up differently in this outline because it may require special attention. The final could compare the social reconstruction of Brown to a parallel situation in modern times. Perhaps even saying how the role of the Court, or more like power or prestige of the Court has changed. I will adjust this analysis after seeing how it is approached in class.