Patrick Novak v. United States
795 F.3d 1012
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Six Hawaii residents and one Hawaii-based corporation sue the United States, challenging the Jones Act cabotage provisions as unconstitutional restraints on interstate commerce affecting Hawaii.
- Plaintiffs allege pecuniary injury from purchasing domestic ocean cargo shipping services on Hawaii routes, caused by the cabotage restrictions.
- Jones Act cabotage provisions require ships carrying U.S. domestic cargo to be built in the United States and wholly owned by U.S. citizens.
- District court dismissed for lack of Article III prudential standing, deeming plaintiffs asserted only generalized grievances shared by many Hawaii residents and businesses.
- The Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal, finding standing defects in causation and redressability, and holds amendment would be futile because the Jones Act is within Congress’s Commerce Clause power.
- Concurrence notes Gun Rights decision should be reconsidered on the causation theory, but agrees the case is not a vehicle to overrule it at this time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does plaintiffs' injury constitute Article III standing? | Plaintiffs allege pecuniary injuries from Jones Act effects in Hawaii. | Injuries are generalized, not particularized, and thus lack standing. | No standing; injuries deemed not sufficiently particularized. |
| Is there causation between the Jones Act and the alleged injury? | Jones Act created a market duopoly and inflated prices harming Hawaii. | Market conditions may cause high prices independent of the Act; third-party actions break causation. | Causation lacking; third-party market factors may cause injury absent the Act. |
| Is redressability satisfied if the Jones Act were invalidated? | Invalidating the Act would relief the injury by lowering prices. | Even with invalidation, independent actors (market forces) may keep prices high. | Redressability not shown; relief unlikely due to independent market factors. |
| Should the plaintiffs be granted leave to amend? | Amendment could cure standing and state a claim. | Amendment would be futile; the Commerce Clause grants broad power and Jones Act is valid. | Leave to amend denied; amendment would be futile. |
| Does the Jones Act regulation violate due process or equal protection as applied to Hawaii? | Disproportionate effects on Hawaii violate due process/Equal Protection. | Disparate impact does not render the statute unconstitutional; rational basis applies; disparity permissible. | No due process/equal protection violation; rational basis review applies and supports Act’s validity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (U.S. 2014) (generalized grievances and standing clarified)
- Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (U.S. 2007) (standing requires concrete injury)
- Newdow v. Rio Linda Union Sch. Dist., 597 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (standing requires particularized injury)
- Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (U.S. 1997) (broad harms still may lack standing)
- San Diego County Gun Rights Committee v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996) (causation requires pleaded link between action and injury)
- Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (U.S. 1824) (commerce power is plenary for interstate regulation)
- Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1946) (commerce power not a limitation on Congress's authority)
- General Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278 (U.S. 1997) (negative implication of Commerce Clause doctrine)
- Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1939) (wisdom of congressional regulation rests with Congress)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (U.S. 1995) (commerce power defers to Congress; general framework)
- Windsor v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (U.S. 2013) (equal protection not a license to judge legislative wisdom)
- FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1993) (due process and rational basis in regulatory schemes)
- ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 (U.S. 1989) (standing and redressability considerations in regulatory actions)
- Mendia v. Garcia, 768 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2014) (causation can be shown where govt action is substantial factor)
- Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (U.S. 1995) (commerce power scope and interstate regulation)