Carney v. Adams - 141 S. Ct. 493 (2020)

Rule:

A grievance that amounts to nothing more than an abstract and generalized harm to a citizen’s interest in the proper application of the law does not count as an injury in fact. And it consequently does not show standing.

Facts:

Delaware's Constitution contains a political balance requirement for appointments to the State's major courts. No more than a bare majority of judges on any of its five major courts “shall be of the same political party.” Art. IV, §3. In addition, on three of those courts, those members not in the bare majority “shall be of the other major political party.”  Respondent James R. Adams, a Delaware lawyer and political independent, sued in Federal District Court, claiming that Delaware's “bare majority” and “major party” requirements violate his First Amendment right to freedom of association by making him ineligible to become a judge unless he joins a major political party. The District Court held that Adams had standing to challenge both requirements and that Delaware's balancing scheme was unconstitutional. The Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that Adams did have standing to challenge the major party requirement, because it categorically excludes independents from becoming judges on three courts, but that he lacked standing to challenge the bare majority requirement, which does not preclude independents from eligibility for any vacancy.

Issue:

Was Adams able to show personal, concrete, and imminent injury necessary for standing under Federal Constitution's Article III?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court found that Adams did not have standing to challenge Del. Const. art. IV, § 3 because he did not show the necessary injury in fact, as he did not show that at the time he commenced the lawsuit, he was able and ready to apply were he not barred because of his political affiliation. Adams’ generalized grievance that he had to live and work within a state that (in his view) imposed unconstitutional requirements for eligibility on three of its courts did not create standing. Rather, the question was whether he suffered a personal and individual injury beyond this generalized grievance -- an injury that was concrete, particularized, and imminent rather than conjectural or hypothetical.