1. Warth v. Seldin, (1975)
2. Facts: πs are minority citizens and associations of Rochester, NY. ∆s are members of the zoning commission of Penfield, a city adjacent to Rochester that has allegedly discriminatory zoning laws, preventing the building of low and moderate income housing.
3. Procedural Posture: The lower courts dismissed the case for lack of standing.
4. Issue: Whether the πs had standing.
5. Holding: No.
6. Majority Reasoning: The πs must show that they have suffered some concrete injury or threatened injury from allegedly illegal action to satisfy the consitutional requirements of cases and controversies of Art. III. Also, the πs must show that their grievance is not just a generalized one of a large class, and that they are not bringing an action on behalf of a third party. The πs must also show that a favorable ruling would provide actual relief, not just speculative relief. Here, none of the minority citizens has alleged facts that show an actual injury, they are merely representatives of a larger class. None of them has ever lived, or alleged that they would live in Penfield were the zoning laws different. Also, they have not show that a favorable ruling would allow them to get the housing they need. The various organizations fail standing for the same reasons.
7. Dissent Reasoning: [Brennan] The court views each separate π as if it were bringing a separate lawsuit, rather than seeing that their allegations are intertwined to be sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. One can not expect the πs to have enough knowlege, prior to discovery, to allege specific enough facts that the majority requires.
8. Notes: In Northeastern Florida Chapeter General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville (1993), the court distinguished Warth and made it clear that the “concreteness” of the πs planned conduct was an important factor in the determination of standing. Here, the contractors actually did bid on the contracts awarded to the minorities, and could allege facts showing that they would have received the contracts if not for the set-aside clause.
