Chapter §11.1 INTRODUCTION

• Jurisdiction: Oregon

§11.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter addresses the attributes and injury that a person must plead and prove in a civil action to challenge the constitutionality of a government action. "Encompassed within the broad question of justici-ability are a constellation of related issues, including standing, ripeness, and mootness." Yancy v. Shatzer, 337 Or 345, 349, 97 P3d 1161 (2004).

Justiciability is a prerequisite for a court to decide a case, and a requirement that the courts will address regardless of whether the parties raise the issue. See Matter of Constitutional Test of House Bill 3017, Oregon Laws, 1977, 281 Or 293, 296, 574 P2d 1103 (1978) (courts have an independent obligation to consider justiciability of claims).

The term standing expresses the concept of the status or qualifications a person needs to prosecute a claim. Kellas v. Dep't of Corr., 341 Or 471, 476-77, 145 P3d 139 (2006) (legislature authorized father to sue to challenge rule that applied to son, not father). A person who possesses the required qualifications may sue; a person who lacks the qualifications may not. See MAN Aktiengesellschaft v. DaimlerChrysler AG, 218 Or App 117, 121, 179 P3d 675, rev allowed, 345 Or 94 (2008) (legislature authorized state to appeal from judgment that eliminated punitive damages verdict, even though state was not party to suit).

The existence of standing to sue is less frequently an issue when a government takes an action that injures a single individual, such as when the government denies an individual's application or damages an individual's person or property. The question of a person's standing to sue arises more often when a government takes an action that affects a large group of people, up to and including the government's entire constituency, such as when the government adopts a law or decides to raise or spend taxes. For example, to challenge a government's action under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (ORS 28.010-28.160), the legislature requires a person to be adversely affected by the government's action; a person does not have standing to sue simply because the person disagrees with the public policy the decision represents or "thinks an enactment or a decision of a government entity to be unlawful." Morgan v. Sisters Sch. Dist. No. 6, 353 Or 189, 195, __ P3d __ (2013) (challenge to government's borrowing of money); see also League of Oregon Cities v. State, 334 Or 645, 658-60, 56 P3d 892 (2002) (challenge to land use and compensation law)...