Watson v. Fox
44 A.3d 130
| R.I. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Watson and nine Republican House members sued for declaratory relief challenging the FY2008 budget grant process as unconstitutional under Art. 5, Art. 9, and Art. 6 of the Rhode Island Constitution.
- The legislative grant program is administered by the Joint Committee on Legislative Services (JCLS), whose members include leaders from both chambers, and grants are decided by the Speaker or Senate President.
- Grants are disclosed on the General Assembly website and require a legislative grant expenditure report; the process was modified in 2005 to increase disclosure.
- In 2006–2007, the JCLS proposed a $2.3 million “other grants” line item in FY2008; the budget act did not itemize every grant, though a budget analysis identified the grant as a separate line item.
- Governor vetoed the budget but was overridden by a two-thirds vote in both chambers; the act subsequently became law.
- Superior Court granted Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for lack of standing and political question concerns; only Watson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff has standing to challenge the budget process | Watson argues standing as a taxpayer to challenge constitutional issues | Defendants contend no injury-in-fact distinct from the public at large | Plaintiff lacks standing; no concrete, particularized injury. |
| Whether the substantial public interest exception permits adjudication despite lack of standing | Watson urges rare exception for substantial public interest | Court should not apply exception here given lack of concrete injury | Court declines to apply substantial public interest exception. |
| Whether the case presents a justiciable controversy or advisory matter | Seeks prospective declaratory relief against future conduct | Relief would be advisory and inappropriate absent standing | Case not justiciable; declaratory relief dismissed for lack of standing. |
| Whether the case raises nonjusticiable political questions | Not specified separate from standing | Claims concern separation of powers and legislative process | Court did not reach political-question merits; dismissal on standing suffices. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flast v. Cohen, 392 A.2d 83 (U.S. 1968) (standing requires a personal injury with a nexus to the challenged action)
- McKenna v. Williams, 874 A.2d 217 (R.I. 2005) (standing as a threshold issue; plaintiff must be proper party to request adjudication of issues)
- Rhode Island Ophthalmological Society v. Cannon, 113 R.I. 16 (1974) (injury in fact required for standing; concrete, particularized interest)
- Blackstone Valley Chamber of Commerce v. Public Utilities Commission, 452 A.2d 931 (R.I. 1982) (injury must be concrete and particularized not just generalized interest)
- In re Advisory Opinion (Chief Justice), 507 A.2d 1316 (R.I. 1986) (advisory opinions limited to governor or respective General Assembly requests)
- Sennott v. Hawksley, 103 R.I. 730 (1968) (context for standing and nonjusticiable issues)
- Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923) (generalized harms cannot sustain standing)
- Burns v. Sundlun, 617 A.2d 114 (R.I. 1992) (exceptional rare standing reconsideration for substantial public interest)