Administrative law standing cases

Administrative law standing cases include the following 50 precedents:

• Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984)
• Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013)
• Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (1999)
• Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (“plausibility” standard for pleadings “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully”)
• Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons v. Schiff, 518 F. Supp. 3d 505 (D.D.C. 2021)
• Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons v. Schiff, 23 F.4th 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2022)
• Barnes v. Lehman, 861 F.2d 1383, 1387 (5th Cir. 1988) (regulations “do not convert private action into state action” even when the regulation “dictate[s] procedures, forms, or even penalties without dictating the challenged action”)
• Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (a complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”)
• Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982) (government “normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State”)
• Cargill, Inc. v. United States, 173 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 1999)
• Changizi v. Dep’t of Health and Hum. Servs., No. 2:22-cv-1776, 2022 WL 1423176 (S.D. Ohio May 5, 2022), appeal filed, No. 2:22-cv-1776, 2022 WL 1423176 (6th Cir. June 30, 2022)
• Children’s Health Def. v. Facebook, 546 F. Supp. 3d 909, 926, 930 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“the phrase ‘vaccine misinformation’ is a general one that could encompass many different types of speech and information about vaccines,” and thus the “general statements” by Congressman Schiff and the CDC concerning “vaccine misinformation” did not “mandate[] the particular actions that Facebook took with regard to [the plaintiff’s] Facebook page”)
• Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013)
• Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Tidwell, 239 F. Supp. 3d 213 (D.D.C. 2017)
• Eccles v. Peoples Bank of Lakewood Village, Cal., 333 U.S. 426 (1948)
• Elec. Priv. Info. Ctr. v. Drone Advisory Comm., 995 F.3d 993 (D.C. Cir. 2021)
• Empower Texans, Inc. v. Geren, 977 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2020)
• Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000)
• Hart v. Facebook, No. 22-cv-00737, 2022 WL 1427507 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2022) (content moderation measures by Twitter and Facebook had “no causal relationship with the Federal Defendants’ actions, and no court order as to the Federal Defendants could redress it”)
• Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988) (limits federal adjudication to “actual, ongoing controversies”)
• Hooks v. Landmark Indus., 797 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2015)
• Huber v. Biden, No. 21-cv-06580, 2022 WL 827248 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2022) (dismissing a claim of conspiracy between President Biden and Twitter to violate First Amendment rights)
• In re S. Recycling, 982 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2020)
• Info. Ctr. v. Drone Advisory Comm., 995 F.3d 993 (D.C. Cir. 2021)
• Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974)
• Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components, 572 U.S. 118 (2014)
• Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972) (the First Amendment “safeguard[s] the rights of free speech” by placing “limitations on state action, not on action by” private actors)
• Lugar v. Edmondson Oil, 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (the requirement of state action “avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed”)
• Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
• Manax v. McNamara, 842 F.2d 808 (5th Cir. 1988)
• McCormack v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 845 F.2d 1338 (5th Cir. 1988)
• Morgan v. Medtronic, 172 F. Supp. 3d 959 (S.D. Tex. 2016)
• Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988) (courts should “avoid[] the imposition of responsibility on [the government] for” private “conduct it could not control”)
• New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. City of New York, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (2020)
• Norris v. Hearst Tr., 500 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2007)
• Pub. Citizen v. Nat’l Advisory Comm. on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, 886 F.2d 419 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
• Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 491 U.S. 440 (1989)
• Randall D. Wolcott, M.D., P.A. v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2011)
• Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982) (a First Amendment exists for private conduct only if that conduct “can fairly be seen as state action”)
• Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312 (1991)
• Roberts v. Louisiana Downs, 742 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1984)
• Soc’y of Separationists v. Herman, 959 F.2d 1283 (5th Cir. 1992)
• Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2009)
• Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (2011)
• Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016)
• Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009)
• Transunion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021)
• Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. 200 (2015) (“the government ... is entitled to promote a program, to espouse a policy, or to take a position”)
• Watts v. Northside Indep. Sch. Dist., 37 F.4th 1094 (5th Cir. 2022)
• West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988)
• Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990)

Holding against standing

• US Inventor v. Vidal (5th Cir. Sept. 30, 2022)