Carney v. Adams
592 U.S. 53
SCOTUS2020Background
- Delaware Constitution requires partisan balance on its five major courts: a "bare majority" limit (no more than a bare majority from one party) on all five courts and an additional "major party" rule (remaining members must be of the other major political party) for three courts (Supreme, Chancery, Superior).
- James R. Adams, a Delaware lawyer who changed his registration to independent, sued claiming those rules violate his First Amendment freedom-of-association rights by barring independents from judgeships.
- The District Court found Adams had standing and ruled the balancing scheme unconstitutional; the Third Circuit affirmed as to the "major party" rule (holding it categorically excluded independents) but held Adams lacked standing to challenge the "bare majority" rule.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to whether Adams had Article III standing and examined the summary-judgment record about Adams’ intent to seek judicial office.
- The Court held Adams lacked standing because he failed to show he was "able and ready" to apply for a judgeship in the reasonably foreseeable future—his testimony of intent stood alone against contrary contextual evidence (past failure to apply when eligible, retirement/active-status evidence, rapid party change after reading a law-review article, and immediate filing of suit).
- Because of the standing defect, the Court vacated the Third Circuit judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss; it did not decide the constitutional merits of the Delaware provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing: whether Adams suffered a concrete, particularized, imminent injury from Delaware's major-party rule | Adams: as an independent he is categorically excluded from judgeships on three courts and would apply if not barred | Carney: Adams only has a generalized grievance; no proof he was "able and ready" to apply imminently | Held: No standing — Adams' statements of intent were insufficient in the record context to show "able and ready" to apply |
| Merits / Severability of Delaware's political-balance provisions | Adams: both the "major party" and "bare majority" rules violate First Amendment association rights and are inseverable | Carney: rules are constitutional and/or severable | Held: Not reached — Court remanded to dismiss for lack of standing (Third Circuit had invalidated the major-party rule but SCOTUS vacated that judgment) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (generalized grievances do not establish Article III standing)
- Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (plaintiff must be "able and ready" to apply to show imminent injury)
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (standing shown where plaintiff bid regularly and was likely to bid again)
- Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (plaintiffs were "able and ready" to bid on contracts and thus had standing)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, 528 U.S. 167 (standing assessed at commencement and must continue)
- Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (no need to apply where application would be a futile gesture)
- United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (limits on generalized public-interest suits)
- Leavitt v. Jane L., 518 U.S. 137 (severability of state law is a matter of state law; federal courts may certify)
- Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (encouraging certification of novel state-law questions to state courts)