759 F.3d 639
7th Cir.2014Background
- West Side submitted a Right-Of-Way permit request on April 30, 2013 to erect 31 six-foot crosses on Evansville's Riverfront.
- Board of Public Works approved the display with a disclaimer that the City does not endorse the display or its message and that it is privately sponsored.
- Crosses would be placed on a four-block stretch of the public Riverfront; location not finally fixed.
- Cabral and Tarsitano filed suit in June 2013 seeking an injunction against the display, alleging Establishment Clause violation; West Side moved to intervene in July 2013.
- District court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting Evansville from permitting erection of the display; Evansville did not appeal.
- West Side appealed as intervener but the court dismissed for lack of standing since Evansville is not a party to the appeal and the injunction runs only against Evansville.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does West Side have standing to appeal the injunction? | West Side contends it has injury in fact and redressability via challenge to district court ruling. | Evansville is not before the court; injury is not redressable through this appeal. | Dismissed for lack of standing. |
| Does Evansville's not appealing affect West Side's ability to challenge the injunction's First Amendment implications? | West Side argues its First Amendment rights are implicated by the injunction. | Standing failure defeats the ability to challenge the injunction; Evansville's absence as a party forecloses redress. | Also dismissed for lack of standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013) (standing requires injury in fact; redressability on appeal)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (core standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing must show likely redressability by favorable decision)
- ASARCO, Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 (1989) (injury and redressability tied to plaintiff's claimed harm)
- Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 131 S. Ct. 1436 (2011) (standing requires direct injury; speculative causation insufficient)
- Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Branson, 212 F.3d 995 (7th Cir. 2000) (derivative injury to non-appealing parties generally cannot support standing)
- Transamerica Ins. Co. v. South, 125 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 1997) (injunctions bind only those parties; effect on non-appealing parties is limited)
- Love Church v. Evanston, 896 F.2d 1082 (7th Cir. 1990) (no standing where claimant never sought or was denied a permit)
- Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2011) (standing requires injury caused by the challenged action)