Standing [in federal courts] derives from the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750-51, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). Standing to bring suit in federal court under Article III is an "irreducible constitutional minimum" consisting of three elements: injury in fact, causation, and redressability. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). An injury in fact is an invasion of a legally protected interest that is both (1) concrete and particularized and (2) actual or imminent, as opposed to conjectural or hypothetical. Id. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Causation is satisfied so long as the injury is "fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct." Allen, 468 U.S. at 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315. Finally, redressability requires only that the injury be likely to be redressed if the requested relief is granted. Id. El Dorado Estates v. City of Fillmore, 765 F. 3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2014).
Ripeness and standing are closely related because they "originate from the same Article III limitation." Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 2334, 2341 n. 5, 189 L.Ed.2d 246 (2014) Montana Envir. Information Center v. Stone-Manning, 766 F. 3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2014).
A dispute is ripe in the constitutional sense if it "present[s] concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions." Colwell v. HHS, 558 F.3d 1112, 1123 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the context of a declaratory judgment suit, the inquiry "depends upon 'whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.'" United States v. Braren, 338 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Md. Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273, 61 S.Ct. 510, 85 L.Ed. 826 (1941)). Montana Envir. Information Center v. Stone-Manning, ibid.
Article III standing "must be met by persons seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance." Arizonans for Official English, 520 U.S. at 64, 117 S.Ct. 1055. Accordingly, an intervenor may not pursue an appeal in the absence of an original party on whose side intervention was permitted unless the intervenor independently satisfies the requirements for constitutional standing. Id. at 65, 117 S.Ct. 1055. Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F. 3d 246 (4th Cir. 2014).
"When evaluating whether [the standing] elements are present, we must look at the facts as they exist at the time the complaint was filed." Am. Civil Liberties Union of Nev. v. Lomax, 471 F.3d 1010, 1015 (9th Cir.2006). Slayman v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 765 F. 3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2014).
[A] class action is not automatically moot because the named representative's claim is moot. If the district court certifies a class before the plaintiff's claim becomes moot, "mooting the putative class representative's claim will not moot the class action." Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1090 (9th Cir.2011); see Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 399-403, 95 S.Ct. 553, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975). But where [ ] the plaintiff's claim becomes moot before the district court certifies the class, the class action normally also becomes moot. Kuahulu, 557 F.2d at 1336-37; see Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs of Indianapolis v. Jacobs, 420 U.S. 128, 129, 95 S.Ct. 848, 43 L.Ed.2d 74 (1975) (per curiam). Slayman v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., ibid.
An exception to this rule exists for claims that "are so inherently transitory that the trial court will not have even enough time to rule on a motion for class certification before the proposed representative's individual interest expires." Pitts, 653 F.3d at 1090 (quoting Cnty. of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 52, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 114 L.Ed.2d 49 (1991)) (internal quotation mark omitted). Such claims are "capable of repetition, yet evading review," and thus do not become moot. Id. Slayman v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., ibid.
THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 32 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and interpret the doctrine of standing under Article III of the U. S. Constitution. The selection of decisions spans from January 2014 to the date of publication.