441 F. App'x 10
2d Cir.2011Background
- Hassan sues the United States alleging that the natural born citizen requirement in Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution is overridden by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- He argues the provision discriminates on national origin and injures him as he intends to run for President in 2012 and registered the domain abdulhassanforpresident.com.
- The district court dismissed Hassan's complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and held Hassan lacked standing.
- The court found Hassan failed to allege concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury sufficient for standing, beyond a bare future intent to run.
- On appeal, Hassan contends there is a cognizable injury from being barred by the natural born citizen requirement and that his intended candidacy and domain registration demonstrate injury.
- The Second Circuit reviews standing de novo and affirms the district court, concluding Hassan lacks standing to pursue his claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hassan has standing to sue. | Hassan asserts injury from disqualification and future political prospects. | Government contends Hassan lacks injury-in-fact and any injury is speculative. | Lacks standing; injury-in-fact not sufficiently alleged. |
| Whether the natural born citizen requirement causes a justiciable injury to Hassan. | The provision injures him by constraining eligibility and discouraging candidacy. | Injury is not concrete or imminent to Hassan; general grievance of citizens. | No concrete, particularized, imminent injury; no standing. |
| Whether Hassan’s domain-name registration constitutes injury giving standing. | Registration evidences intent to run and injury from exclusion. | Domain registration alone does not establish ongoing or imminent injury. | Domain registration does not create standing. |
| Whether the complaint plausibly states a constitutional claim. | Constitutional incompatibility exists between Article II and the Fourteenth/Fifth Amendments. | Even if arguendo to consider, standing is fatal; no plausible injury asserted. | Dismissal affirmed on lack of standing; no need to reach the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 424 U.S. 599 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability)
- Sullivan v. Syracuse Housing Authority, 962 F.2d 1101 (2d Cir. 1992) (Article III jurisdiction and standing prerequisites)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2009) (some day intentions without concrete plans do not support imminent injury)
- Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury must be concrete and particularized)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2006) (standing not satisfied where injury is common to all citizens)
- Port Washington Teachers’ Ass’n v. Bd. of Ed., 478 F.3d 494 (2d Cir. 2007) (standing and injury-in-fact considerations in a public-employee context)