Duit Construction Company Inc. v. Scott Bennett
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13777
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Duit Construction, an Oklahoma contractor, sued Arkansas highway officials after ASHTD-required “undercutting” remedied unexpected soil conditions on I-30; ASHTD and the Arkansas State Claims Commission denied Duit’s compensation claims.
- Arkansas law requires claimants to proceed first to the State Claims Commission and then to the General Assembly; Duit followed that process and lost.
- Duit filed a § 1983 action seeking prospective injunctive relief under Ex parte Young, alleging violations of the Federal Aid Highway Act (FAHA) and the Fourteenth Amendment (due process and equal protection).
- District court dismissed the FAHA claim (as enforceable only by executive oversight) and the due process claim, but permitted the equal protection claim to proceed against state highway officials.
- Defendants appealed the denial of Eleventh Amendment immunity as to the equal protection claim.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed as to the equal protection claim, holding Duit lacks Article III standing and that defendants lack the connection to the Claims Commission necessary for Ex parte Young relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing to challenge Claims Commission decisions via state highway officials | Duit argued injury from discriminatory Claims Commission rulings is traceable to defendants and would be redressed by an injunction preventing defendants from accepting federal aid | Defendants argued they lack control over Claims Commission and thus Duit cannot show causation or redressability | Court held Duit lacks standing: causation and redressability fail because Claims Commission (not defendants) made the decisions | |
| Ex parte Young exception applicability to suit against ASHTD officials | Duit contended state highway agencies are proper Ex parte Young defendants because both are state actors whose conduct caused the injury | Defendants argued Claims Commission is a separate entity and the highway officials lack the requisite enforcement connection | Court held Ex parte Young did not save the claim because defendants had no authority to enforce or alter Claims Commission decisions | |
| Reviewability of district court dismissals of FAHA and due process claims on appeal | Duit asked reversal of dismissals | Defendants did not cross-appeal those dismissals | Court declined to address those issues now, noting cross-appeal rule and that those rulings can be revisited on remand | Court left FAHA and due process rulings for further proceedings/remand and recommended addressing standing and Ex parte Young for those claims if they proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (an official may be enjoined only if they have a connection to enforcement of the challenged law)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (Eleventh Amendment limits suits against state entities)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (standing is required to establish Article III jurisdiction)
- Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405 (no standing when sued official lacks power to affect complained-of action)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (federal courts must assure Article III jurisdiction even if not raised)
- Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (cross-appeal rule barring a court from altering judgment to benefit a nonappealing party)