3 F.4th 24
1st Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiffs: two advocacy organizations (Equal Means Equal; The Yellow Roses) and individual Katherine Weitbrecht sued Archivist David S. Ferriero after Virginia’s 2020 ratification, alleging the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) reached the required 38-state threshold.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Archivist violated 1 U.S.C. § 106b by refusing to publish/certify the ERA as the Twenty-Eighth Amendment.
- Complaint challenged the validity of Congress’s original seven-year deadline and its extension, asserted late ratifications (Nevada, Illinois, Virginia) completed ratification, and argued rescissions by some states were ineffective.
- Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the ERA is duly ratified and an injunction requiring the Archivist to record and not remove ratifications.
- District Court dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing; First Circuit affirmed, finding plaintiffs failed plausibly to allege injury, causation, and redressability.
- Court rejected individual/member standing (remote causal link to alleged increased risk of sex-based harm), associational standing (no member with standing), and organizational standing (mission frustration and expenditures amounted only to advocacy diversion and were insufficient under Havens).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing (general) | Plaintiffs claim they suffered cognizable injuries from Archivist's refusal to publish ERA. | Archivist: plaintiffs fail to allege injury in fact, traceability, or redressability. | Court: plaintiffs did not plausibly allege the triad (injury, causation, redressability); dismissal affirmed. |
| Individual/member standing | Members (and Weitbrecht) face increased risk of sex-based harms because ERA not published; that risk is concrete and particularized. | Archivist: any risk is speculative and not fairly traceable to Archivist’s omission. | Court: risk-of-harm allegations too attenuated from Archivist’s conduct; insufficient to establish standing. |
| Associational standing | Equal Means Equal asserts it represents members harmed by Archivist’s conduct. | Archivist: associational standing requires at least one member with individual standing. | Court: no individual member plausibly alleged standing, so associational standing fails. |
| Organizational standing (mission diversion) | Orgs allege frustration of mission and diversion of resources (litigation, education, outreach) caused by Archivist’s inaction. | Archivist: claimed injuries are only advocacy costs; organizational standing requires concrete service impairment (Havens). | Court: organizational allegations are mere issue-advocacy/diversion and unlike Havens; insufficient for organizational standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (establishes case-or-controversy/standing principles)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (concrete and particularized injury; imminence standard)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (plaintiff must plausibly allege standing at pleading stage)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (limits on traceability and proximate cause for Article III injury)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (speculative future injuries do not satisfy standing)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (organizational standing where defendant’s conduct perceptibly impaired organization's concrete services)
- Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (associational standing requires members who could sue in their own right)
- Katz v. Pershing, LLC, 672 F.3d 64 (First Circuit discussion of standing triad)
- Carson ex rel. O.C. v. Makin, 979 F.3d 21 (First Circuit precedent on parental standing in education context)