It’s not enough that claimed injury is govt.’s doing “not its job” injury” not enough- i.e. Allen “Stigmatic/[generalized] Ps: I’m not personally injured b/c I’m not “Although trying to send my kids to white flight schools/my kids aren’t getting discriminated against, that people like me are getting discriminated against stigmatizes people like me” Claim 2 Ps have standing to vindicate their kids’ right to have a –Do racially integrated pub. school edu. (which IRS is undermining by not revoking tax-exempt status of flight” schools?) “white Concl: No. Analysis: (1) While this IS leg. cog. injury… (2) Fails causation / traceability sub-prong causal – connection between IRS contd. subsidies to white flight schools & this injury attenuated at best Stresses SoP standing concerns* - Ps insisting that fed. cts. should continually monitors soundness of Exec. policy (Here, IRS)….such a role is more appropriate for Congress Dissent: Yes. Econ. analysis Causation prong IS satisfied. – SC forcing IRS to remove white flight school tax-exempt status tuition at those schools goes up some private school parents will withdraw kids & put them into pub. Schools integration of pub. schools Hypo- Had SC ruled on the merits in Allan & revoked white flight schools’ tax exempt status, & then had white flight schools sued govt. claiming IRS applying tax code too strictly…. lost $ from enrollment decline from 1. Injury-in-fact? –Yes. tuition incr. 2. Causal relationship? A. That’s fairly traceable to D’s (here, govt.’s) actions? Yes; IRS revoking tax-exempt status directly causally traceable to schools’ lost $ from enrollment decline due to necc. tuition increases 3. SoP Allen rationale against SC intervention? (Would giving these Ps standing require SC to be“monitor of wisdom of govt policy?”_ Yes.
It’s not enough that claimed injury is govt.’s “not doing its job” “Stigmatic/[generalized] injury” not enough- i.e. Allen Ps: “Although I’m not personally injured b/c I’m not trying to send my kids to white flight schools/my kids aren’t getting discriminated against, that people like me are getting discriminated against stigmatizes people like me” Claim 2 –Do Ps have standing to vindicate their kids’ right to have a racially integrated pub. school edu. (which IRS is undermining by not revoking tax-exempt status of “white flight” schools?) Concl: No. Analysis: (1) While this IS leg. cog. injury… (2) Fails causation / traceability sub-prong – causal connection between IRS contd. subsidies to white flight schools & this injury attenuated at best Stresses SoP standing concerns* - Ps insisting that fed. cts. should continually monitors soundness of Exec. policy (Here, IRS)….such a role is more appropriate for Congress Dissent: Yes. Econ. analysis – Causation prong IS satisfied. SC forcing IRS to remove white flight school tax-exempt status tuition at those schools goes up some private school parents will withdraw kids & put them into pub. Schools integration of pub. schools Hypo- Had SC ruled on the merits in Allan & revoked white flight schools’ tax exempt status, & then had white flight schools sued govt. claiming IRS applying tax code too strictly…. 1. Injury-in-fact? –Yes. lost $ from enrollment decline from tuition incr. 2. Causal relationship? A. That’s fairly traceable to D’s (here, govt.’s) actions? Yes; IRS revoking tax-exempt status directly causally traceable to schools’ lost $ from enrollment decline due to necc. tuition increases 3. SoP Allen rationale against SC intervention? (Would giving these Ps standing require SC to be“monitor of wisdom of govt policy?”_ Yes.
Constitutional%20Law%20I-%20Smith-%20Spring%202012.docx