Standing Alone?: The Michigan Supreme Court, the Lansing Decision, and the Liberalization of the Standing Doctrine
By Kenneth Charette.
Standing refers to a litigant’s ability to bring a specific cause of action before a court. A litigant’s failure to demonstrate the necessary requirements of standing to sue will result in a dismissal of his or her claim. Standing is a judicially created doctrine designed to limit the jurisdictional reach of courts. The basic premise behind the standing doctrine is that courts should only have the power to adjudicate certain types of claims. Article III of the United States Constitution limits the power of Federal Courts to deciding only “case” or “controversy.” This doctrine generally is justified on the basis of maintaining the separation of powers between the various branches of government. While state governments are not necessarily bound by the requirements of Article III, all state courts have recognized the need for some form of a standing doctrine.
This Comment will address the ways in which a recent Michigan Supreme Court case dramatically altered the requirements for standing to sue in Michigan. The Michigan Supreme Court recently handed down its opinion in Lansing Schools Educational Association v. Lansing Board of Education. In Lansing, students allegedly assaulted four high school teachers. An applicable state statute required the expulsion of any student who assaults a teacher. However, the school board, in its discretion, chose only to suspend the students, as opposed to rigidly adhering to the statutory requirements. The teachers union, on behalf of the four teachers, filed suit seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the local school board to expel the students. The trial court and the appellate division dismissed the suit on the ground that the teacher union lacked standing to sue for the enforcement of the statute under the applicable test. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed and chose to abandon the federal test for standing on the grounds that it departed too dramatically from Michigan’s historical precedents and because the Michigan Constitution lacks an explicit “case” or “controversy” requirement. The court held that a plaintiff in Michigan now has standing to sue if either 1) he has a specific legal cause of action; or 2) a trial court, in its discretion, believes a litigant should have standing.