Common Cause v. Joseph Biden, Jr.
748 F.3d 1280
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- DREAM and DISCLOSE bills passed the House but stalled in the Senate; neither became law due to filibusters.
- Plaintiffs—House members, beneficiaries of the DREAM Act, and Common Cause—sued Vice President Biden and three Senate officers challenging Senate Rule XXII.
- District Court dismissed for lack of standing, finding no cognizable injury, improper causation, no redressability, and a nonjusticiable political question.
- Common Cause alleged Rule XXII prevents majority-rule legislation; asserted injury from inability to pass majority-supported bills.
- Court analyzes Speech or Debate Clause as potential bar; notes the clause protects Senate conduct but focuses on whether the defendants caused the injuries.
- Holding focuses on who Common Cause sued; injury attributed to the Senate as a whole (an absent third party), not the named defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do plaintiffs have standing to challenge Rule XXII? | Common Cause contends injury from cloture rule. | Defendants argue no concrete injury by the named defendants. | Common Cause lacks standing. |
| Does the Speech or Debate Clause bar the suit? | Clause immunizes legislative acts; targets non-Senate defendants may be distinct. | Clause may shield the named defendants from suit. | Issue unresolved for decision; court notes potential immunity but focuses on proper defendant. |
| Can the suit proceed against Senate officers rather than the Senate itself? | Powell allows challenging implementation by officers. | Officers' actions are not shown to cause the injury; proper defendant is the Senate. | Improper defendant; cannot establish causation. |
| Is the injury caused by an absent third party (the Senate) or by the named defendants? | Defendants caused the injuries through rule implementation. | Injury stems from Senate-wide action, not from defendants. | Injury attributable to absent third party; no jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powel v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (standing when suing for implementational acts by officers)
- Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975) (Speech or Debate Clause protection for acts within legislative sphere)
- Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82 (1967) (clause protects burden of defending self in litigation)
- Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 (1973) (legislative process involved in defending actions under inquiry)
- Florida Audubon Society v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (standing when injures attributed to legislative process and absent third party)
- Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (1979) (collateral estoppel concerns; limited relevance here but cited)