Linda R. S. v. Richard D.

From Conservapedia

In Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court considered a lawsuit by the mother of an illegitimate child to enjoin "discriminatory application" by Texas law enforcement authorities of a state statute imposing criminal liability for breach of child support duties.

The authorities enforced the statute only against fathers of legitimate children, which practice the plaintiff alleged to be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Court held "that, in the unique context of a challenge to a criminal statute, appellant has failed to allege a sufficient nexus between her injury and the government action which she attacks to justify judicial intervention." 410 U.S. at 617-618.

In a broad dictum the Court stated "that, in American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another." Id. at 619. But this dictum should probably be read against the factual backdrop of the case. The plaintiff was interested in having the father of her child punished. Thus her complaint in effect sought a judicial order compelling prosecution of a particular individual, a practice shunned by American courts. As the Court emphasized, it was this focus on prosecution of a particular individual that destroyed the "logical nexus" necessary for standing:

Thus, if appellant were granted the requested relief, it would result only in the jailing of the child's father. The prospect that prosecution will, at least in the future, result in payment of support can, at best, be termed only speculative.

Id. at 618. In finding "only speculative" the possibility that a particular person once jailed will pay child support after his release, the Court did not necessarily classify as speculative the possibility that improved enforcement of a statute would increase compliance by the generality of those subject to it. Thus one injured by a general noncompliance, rather than by the noncompliance of a particular individual, might still have standing to challenge the deficient enforcement policy responsible for the noncompliance.

The Court in Linda R. S. was careful to note that the law enforcement policy there challenged could be adequately tested in the courts by an Equal Protection "defense" to a prosecution charging the father of a legitimate child with nonsupport. Id. at 619 n. 5. No such alternate remedy exists where the policy under challenge is one of bringing absolutely no prosecutions.