Carney v. Adams
592 U. S. ____ (2020) (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish Article III standing to challenge a government eligibility requirement, a plaintiff must demonstrate a concrete, particularized, and imminent injury by showing they are 'able and ready' to apply for the benefit; a mere statement of general intent is insufficient, especially when contradicted by the factual record.
Facts:
- The Delaware Constitution contains two provisions for judicial appointments: a 'bare majority' rule limiting how many judges can be from one political party, and a 'major party' rule requiring the remaining judges on three specific courts to be from the other major political party.
- James R. Adams, a Delaware lawyer, was a registered Democrat for his entire adult life and was actively involved in the state's Democratic Party.
- Between 2012 and 2016, a total of 14 judicial vacancies occurred on Delaware's five major courts for which Adams, as a Democrat, would have been eligible to apply.
- Adams did not apply for any of these 14 vacancies.
- In early 2017, Adams read a law review article arguing that Delaware's judicial eligibility requirements unconstitutionally excluded political independents.
- On February 13, 2017, Adams changed his political affiliation from Democrat to independent.
- Eight days later, on February 21, 2017, Adams initiated a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Delaware's judicial appointment rules.
- In a deposition for the lawsuit, Adams stated he 'would apply for any judicial position that I thought I was qualified for,' but he also stated he had 'no knowledge of what judicial positions may become open in the next year' and provided no other evidence of his preparations or concrete plans to apply.
Procedural Posture:
- James R. Adams sued Governor John Carney in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, claiming Delaware's judicial appointment rules violated the First Amendment.
- The District Court denied the Governor's motion to dismiss for lack of standing and granted summary judgment to Adams, holding that the state's political balance requirements were unconstitutional.
- Governor Carney, as the appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that Adams (appellee) had standing to challenge the 'major party' requirement, which it found unconstitutional and not severable from the 'bare majority' requirement for three of the state courts.
- Governor Carney petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted, and the Court directed the parties to first address the question of Article III standing.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff have Article III standing to challenge a state constitutional provision that makes him ineligible for a judicial appointment based on political affiliation, when his only evidence of injury is his stated intent to apply for a judgeship, but he never applied for past vacancies for which he was eligible and offers no other evidence of concrete plans to apply in the imminent future?
Opinions:
Majority - Breyer
No. A plaintiff lacks Article III standing because he has not shown that he suffered a concrete, particularized, and imminent injury in fact. To establish standing to challenge a barrier to a government benefit, a plaintiff must show they are 'able and ready' to apply for that benefit in the reasonably foreseeable future. Adams's general statement that he would apply is insufficient to demonstrate an imminent injury. This statement stands alone, undermined by a record showing he failed to apply for 14 past vacancies for which he was eligible. The timing of his actions—changing his party registration and filing suit immediately after reading a law review article—suggests his motivation was an abstract, generalized grievance with the law, not a personal and concrete desire to become a judge. His 'some day intentions' are too conjectural to meet the imminence requirement established in cases like Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, and he failed to provide corroborating evidence of his readiness, unlike the plaintiffs in cases like Adarand Constructors and Gratz.
Concurring - Sotomayor
No, I agree that Adams did not demonstrate Article III standing. I write separately to highlight two issues for future consideration. First, the 'bare majority' requirement and the 'major party' requirement are materially different and may require distinct constitutional analyses, as the latter imposes a greater burden on associational rights. Second, the question of whether an unconstitutional provision is severable from the rest of the state constitution is a sensitive matter of state law. Federal courts may be well advised to consider certifying such questions to the state's highest court rather than deciding them, especially when they affect the structure of a branch of state government.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the stringency of Article III's 'injury in fact' requirement for standing, particularly the 'imminence' prong. It clarifies that a plaintiff's self-serving statement of intent to seek a government benefit is insufficient on its own, especially when the surrounding factual context undermines that assertion. The Court signals that it will scrutinize the entire record to distinguish between a litigant with a concrete injury and one with a 'generalized grievance' seeking an advisory opinion. This precedent raises the bar for plaintiffs challenging eligibility barriers, requiring them to build a factual record demonstrating concrete preparations and a genuine, imminent intent to apply.
