Standing - Public Law Action


Munza, et al. v. Ivey, Harris, and Alabama State Bd. of Health, [Ms. 1200003, Mar. 19, 2021], ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2021). The Court (Bolin, J.; Parker, C.J., and Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur; Shaw, J., concurs in the result) affirms the Montgomery Circuit Court’s dismissal of an action challenge Governor Ivey’s emergency COVID-19 order mandating the wearing of facial coverings.

Public-law actions involve “constitutional or other challenges to the actions of officials or administrative agencies.” Ms. *13, quoting Ex parte BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP,159 So. 3d 31, 34 (Ala. 2013). Regarding standing, the Court explains

A party establishes standing to bring a challenge in a public-law case “when it demonstrates the existence of (1) an actual, concrete and particularized injury in fact – an invasion of a legally protected interest; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Ms. *13, quoting Poiroux v. Rich, 150 So. 3d 1027, 1033 (Ala. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court concludes “that the plaintiffs have failed to allege specific concrete facts demonstrating an actual ... particularized injury in fact, and that they, therefore, lack standing to proceed with this action.” Ms. *21 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The Court also rejected the Plaintiffs’ contention that the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act (AAPA) affirmatively granted them standing and explains “the AAPA incorporates all the normal standing requirements discussed in Poiroux and does not grant the plaintiffs a separate avenue to assert standing to bring an action.” Ms. *22.

Related Documents

Share To: