Kowalski v. Tesmer
543 U.S. 125, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 8273, 160 L. Ed. 2d 519 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A litigant cannot assert the constitutional rights of a third party unless the litigant has a close relationship with the third party and there is a genuine hindrance to the third party's ability to protect their own interests. A hypothetical future attorney-client relationship is insufficient to establish the requisite closeness.
Facts:
- In 1994, Michigan amended its Constitution to provide that appeals by defendants who plead guilty are by 'leave of the court,' not as of right.
- Following this amendment, some Michigan state judges began denying appointed appellate counsel to indigent defendants who had pleaded guilty.
- The Michigan Legislature then enacted a statute, effective April 1, 2000, that codified this practice, prohibiting the appointment of appellate counsel for most indigents who plead guilty.
- Two attorneys, Arthur M. Fitzgerald and Michael D. Vogler, who regularly received paid appointments to represent such defendants, anticipated a significant reduction in their income due to the new law.
- The statute affects a population of indigent defendants who are often poorly educated and lack the skills to navigate the appellate process without legal assistance.
Procedural Posture:
- Two attorneys and three indigent defendants filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Michigan officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
- The District Court found the state's practice and the impending statute unconstitutional and issued an injunction preventing its enforcement.
- The state officials appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the indigent defendants' claims were barred by the Younger abstention doctrine but that the attorneys had third-party standing; the panel then upheld the statute as constitutional.
- The Sixth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and reversed the panel's decision on the merits, agreeing that the attorneys had standing but finding the statute unconstitutional.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the en banc Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do attorneys have third-party standing to challenge a state law that denies appointed appellate counsel to indigent defendants who plead guilty by asserting the constitutional rights of hypothetical future indigent clients?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. Attorneys lack third-party standing to assert the rights of hypothetical future clients because they fail to satisfy the prudential requirements for such standing. To establish third-party standing, a litigant must demonstrate both a 'close relationship' with the person whose rights are being asserted and a 'hindrance' to that person's ability to protect their own interests. Here, the attorneys do not have an existing attorney-client relationship with any affected indigent, but only a hypothetical future one, which is not 'close' enough. Furthermore, there is no sufficient hindrance, as indigent defendants can challenge the denial of counsel pro se through state appellate procedures, collateral review, and ultimately a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, as some have already done.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. The attorneys have third-party standing because they satisfy all three requirements: injury in fact, a close relationship, and a hindrance to the third party. The attorneys suffer a direct economic 'injury in fact' from the loss of paid appointments. The attorney-client relationship is of 'special consequence' and precedent allows for standing based on relationships with 'potential' clients. Most importantly, there is a formidable hindrance to the indigents' ability to assert their own rights, as they are typically poorly educated, lack literacy skills, and cannot navigate the complex legal and procedural requirements of an appeal without the very counsel the state is denying them.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. The Court's opinion is a reasonable application of its precedents, but the doctrine of third-party standing itself has gone 'far astray.' It is doubtful whether a party who has no personal constitutional right at stake should ever be allowed to litigate the constitutional rights of others. Historically, the Court did not permit this practice, and while it may be too late to return to that view entirely, the doctrine should not be applied as broadly as it has been in the past. Because the attorneys here have no relationship at all with their alleged clients, denying standing is the correct result.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of third-party standing, particularly for attorneys seeking to vindicate the rights of a class of potential future clients. By distinguishing this case from precedents like Triplett, the Court emphasizes that a concrete, existing relationship is a key component of the 'close relationship' prong. The ruling reinforces prudential limitations on federal jurisdiction, aiming to prevent federal courts from short-circuiting state court proceedings and deciding abstract constitutional questions. It signals a judicial preference for challenges brought by the individuals directly harmed, even when those individuals face significant practical disadvantages in bringing their own claims.
