Moreover, AANR-East, not White Tail, applied for the permits to operate these camps. standing inquiry "depends not upon the merits but on 'whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring suit' " (alteration in original) (quoting Raines v. Byrd , 521 U.S. 811, 818, 117 S.Ct. A regulation that reduces the size of a speaker's audience can constitute an invasion of a legally protected interest. See Chesapeake B M, Inc. v. Harford County, Md., 58 F.3d 1005, 1010 (4th Cir. <> Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. They contend that the new requirements of the Virginia statute imposed an unconstitutional burden on their right to guide the upbringing of their children and their children's right to privacy and expressive association. 2004). endobj AANR-East, White Tail, and three sets of parents sued Robert B. Stroube, Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Health (responsible for issuing the licenses). v. Stroube,US4 No. q An organizational plaintiff may establish standing to bring suit on its own behalf when it seeks redress for an injury suffered by the organization itself. WebIn June 2003, AANR-East opened a week-long juvenile nudist camp at a licensed nudist campground ("White Tail Park") operated by White Tail near Ivor, Virginia. The The doctrine limits the category of litigants empowered to maintain a lawsuit in federal court to seek redress for a legal wrong. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, Only eleven campers would have been able to attend in light of the new restrictions. WebWhite Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 459 (4th Cir. The gravamen of the standing issue for AANR-East is whether it has sufficiently demonstrated that it "ha[s] suffered an `injury in fact. . 22 0 obj endstream 
III, 2, cl. 114. On Brief: Frank M. Feibelman, Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Upon those two bases, the district court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the claims of AANR-East and White Tail for lack of standing. See, e.g., American Canoe Ass'n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 517 (4th Cir. <> /Type /Font J.A. Richmond, Fredericksburg Potomac R.R. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. Thus, "a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." 1036, 160 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2005). endobj . By focusing on the intrusiveness of the statute and the extent to which it impaired the ability of AANR-East to carry its message to summer camp attendees, the court was effectively making a merits determination. This injury is defined as the invasion of a legally protected interest that is both (a) concrete and See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 115. Listed below are those cases in which Const., art. Roche enclosed a press release issued by AANR-East indicating that, in light of the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction, AANR-East was forced to cancel camp because the new Virginia statutory requirements "place[d] an undue burden on too many parents who had planned to send their children" to the camp. ", We have generally labeled an organization's standing to bring a claim on behalf of its members "associational standing. << 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) (explaining that an organizational plaintiff may have standing to sue on its own behalf "to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the association itself may enjoy"). On August 10, 2004, the district court held a hearing on the Commissioner's motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Gaston LLC. Webhampton, nh police log january 2021. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67, 117 S.Ct. 1917. The doctrine of mootness flows from the constitutional limitation of federal court jurisdiction to actual "Cases" or "Controversies." AANR-East contends that the amended statute will reduce the size of the camp every year because not all would-be campers have parents or guardians who are available to register and attend a week of camp during the summer, as evidenced by the fact that 24 campers who would have otherwise attended camp by themselves in June 2004 were unable to do so because of their parents' inability or unwillingness to attend. J.A. <> ACLU-VA's Statement on Gov. MFk t,:.FW8c1L&9aX:
rbl1 ; see also White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 459 (4th Cir. "To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed." For the reasons stated above, we reverse the order dismissing the First Amendment claim brought by AANR-East for lack of standing and remand for further proceedings. Implicit in the district court's explanation appears to be the conclusion that AANR-East and White Tail both failed to satisfy the first Lujan requirement for standing under Article III that the plaintiff demonstrate the existence of an injury in fact. J.A. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). 2005) (citations and quotations omitted). or AANR-East because their `organizational standing' derives from that of the anonymous plaintiffs." 2130. Contact us. /BaseFont /Courier endobj Right to Send Children to Nudist Summer Camp,White Tail v. Stoube. Use our proprietary AI tool CaseIQ to find other relevant judgments with just one click. endobj On July 5, 2005, the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court and reinstated the case. WebWhite Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 459 SALT INSTITUTE v. LEAVITT 3 (4th Cir. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. /Author <> On August 10, 2004, the judge dismissed the case, holding that it was moot and that the plaintiffs do not have standing. endstream The complaint The district court explained that AANR-East and White Tail lack standing in their own right because the statute imposed only a "minimal requirement" that "[did] not prevent [White Tail] and AANR-East from disseminating their message of social nudism." 23 0 obj of Commrs. The American Association for Nude Recreation-Eastern Region, Inc. ("AANR-East"), White Tail Park, Inc. ("White Tail"), and six individual plaintiffs appeal from the order of the district court dismissing their complaint for lack of standing. 9 0 obj "A justiciable case or controversy requires a `plaintiff [who] has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation of federal court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf.'" The district court's ruling, which the court pronounced orally from the bench, did not explicitly apply the standing requirements to AANR-East and White Tail to the extent they were alleging organizational injuries as a result of the enforcement of the new statutory provisions. 2005) .. 11 STA TU TES AZ. Although the First Amendment challenge to section 35.1-18 mounted by AANR-East may ultimately prove unsuccessful we express no opinion on the merits here AANR-East is an appropriate party to raise this challenge. <> >> 1991). /ModDate <443A32303138313030313135323533385A> . And, although AANR-East relocated its camp in 2004, it has already applied for a permit to operate the camp at White Tail Park in the summer of 2005. In June 2004, Robert Roche, president of AANR-East, applied for a permit to operate the youth nudist camp scheduled for late July 2004. 2130 (explaining that "[a]t the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice," but in response to a summary judgment motion, "the plaintiff can no longer rest on such `mere allegations,' [and] must `set forth' by affidavit or other evidence `specific facts'" establishing standing (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. On Brief: Frank M. Feibelman, Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. John Kenneth Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Thus, we turn to the injury in fact requirement. See J.A. On appeal, White Tail and AANR-East do not claim to have associational standing, given that neither organization is pursuing any claims on behalf of the individual plaintiffs. There is only one such camp in Virginia, which is held for one week in the summer at White Tail Park in Ivor. Opinion by Traxler, J. 2002)). AANR-East leased the 45-acre campground that ordinarily attracts about 1000 weekend visitors who come to engage in nude recreation and interact with other individuals and families who practice social nudism. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Web1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) - ii - CASES ACLU of Ohio Found., Inc. v. Bd. 24 0 obj v. Giuliani, 143 F.3d 638, 649 (2nd Cir. endobj 2005) ("[W]hen a defendant raises standing as the basis for a motion under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss for lack of subject The standing requirement must be satisfied by individual and organizational plaintiffs alike. During the 2004 session, Virginia General Assembly has passed a bill that prohibits the licensing of nudist camps for juveniles, which is defined as a camp attended by juveniles without a parent, grandparent or legal guardian in attendance. % We turn first to the question of mootness. In fact, it applied for the permit prior to the August 10, 2004, hearing on the Commissioner's motion to dismiss. On July 15, the district court denied the preliminary injunction after a hearing. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. <> White Tail Park also serves as home for a small number of permanent residents. 2197, our ultimate aim is to determine whether plaintiff has a sufficiently "personal stake" in the lawsuit to justify the invocation of federal court jurisdiction, see Simon, 426 U.S. at 38, 96 S.Ct. If a plaintiff's legally protected interest hinged on whether a given claim could succeed on the merits, then "every unsuccessful plaintiff will have lacked standing in the first place." AANR-East has not identified its liberty interest at stake or developed this claim further. 18 0 obj denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. Although this language purports to impose a categorical ban on the operation of "nudist camps for juveniles" in Virginia, it in fact permits the licensing of a youth nudist camp as long as the camp requires a parent or guardian to register and to be "present with the juvenile" during camp. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. J.A. (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original), and that any injury will likely "be redressed by a favorable decision," id. Decided July 5, 2005. Because the standing elements are "an indispensable part of the plaintiff's case, each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation." We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982). . Ultimately, however, AANR-East was able to operate its youth nudist camp by relocating to a neighboring state. . We turn first to the question of mootness. Having concluded that the claims of AANR-East and White Tail are not moot, we next consider whether these organizations have standing to raise them in federal court. . 57. 114. Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR., United States District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation. WebWhite Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 458 (4th Cir. Webv. 1997). endobj /Build <467954656B277320504446204D656C6420436F6D6D65726369616C2056657273696F6E2031302E34206173206F662046656272756172792032302C20323031372031383A34313A3130> Regardless of whether the district court technically addressed this issue, this court is obliged to address any standing issue that arises, even if it was never presented to the district court. 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988). See Doe v. Obama, 631 F.3d 157, 160 (4th Cir. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 04-2002. trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant" instead of "the independent action of some third party not before the court," id. According to AANR-East, twenty-four campers who would have otherwise attended the camp were precluded from doing so because no parent, grandparent, or guardian was able to accompany them to White Tail Park during the week scheduled for camp. << An organization suffers such an injury when the plaintiff alleges that a defendants practices have hampered an organizations stated objectives causing the organization to 115. 7 0 obj 2005)). See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 101-02, 118 S.Ct. {{{;}#tp8_\. 2011); White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 458-59 (4th Cir. AANR-East leased the 45-acre campground that ordinarily attracts about 1000 weekend visitors who come to engage in nude recreation and interact with other individuals and families who practice social nudism. Like the doctrine of mootness, the standing limitation is derived from the cases or controversies requirement of Article III. We have appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Found WHITE TAIL PARK, INC. v. STROUBE useful? /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /Title <> /BaseFont /Helvetica >> John Kenneth Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. or AANR-East because their `organizational standing' derives from that of the anonymous plaintiffs." . The amended statute requires a parent, grandparent or guardian to accompany any juvenile who attends a nudist summer camp: Va. Code 35.1-18 (emphasis added). J.A. <> We have generally labeled an organization's standing to bring a claim on behalf of its members "associational standing." The context of the district court's statement, which followed a discussion of the individual plaintiffs' inability to establish injury in fact, supports this view. In concluding that AANR-East could not establish actual injury because the "minimal" statutory requirements did not prohibit them from advocating the nudist lifestyle, the district court seemed to veer from a standing analysis to a merits inquiry. %PDF-1.4 2004), cert. 1 1988. /Subtype /Type1 Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. Irish Lesbian Gay Org. "A justiciable case or controversy requires a `plaintiff [who] has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation of federal court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf.'" See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511, 95 S.Ct. 103. White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 460 (4th Cir. See Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 422-23, 108 S.Ct. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct. The camp is highly supervised and there is no indication that any sexual activity takes place or that children are physically or psychologically harmed in any way. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. They contend that the new requirements of the Virginia statute imposed an unconstitutional burden on their right to guide the upbringing of their children and their children's right to privacy and expressive association. /Type /Font Virginia law requires any person who owns or operates a summer camp or campground facility in Virginia to be licensed by the Food and Environmental Services Division of the Virginia Department of Health ("VDH"). 12 0 obj Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction together with the complaint. WebAANR-East, White Tail, and three sets of parents sued Robert B. Stroube, Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Health (responsible for issuing the licenses). The camp agenda included traditional activities such as arts and crafts, campfire sing-alongs, swimming, and sports. Like all applicants for permits under section 35.1-18 at that time, Roche was required to sign and submit with the application an acknowledgment that Virginia law banned the operation of nudist camps for juveniles as defined by Virginia Code 35.1-18. stream The standing requirement must be satisfied by individual and organizational plaintiffs alike. 114. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) and White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 45859 (4th Cir.2005). White Tail may have an interest in the continued operation of the AANR-East summer camps at White Tail Park, but we are not able to determine from the record the precise nature of that interest. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has submitted declarations from two of its members and from its Vice President of Environmental Protection and Restoration. . The district court explained further that the organizational plaintiffs, AANR-East and White Tail, lacked standing to assert their own constitutional rights, if any, because they were unable to establish actual or imminent injury resulting from the statutory requirement that all campers be accompanied by a parent or guardian. The gravamen of the standing issue for AANR-East is whether it has sufficiently demonstrated that it "ha[s] suffered an `injury in fact.'" x \ . 2003); Friends for Ferrell Parkway, 282 F.3d at 320. 9-16, with Lujan v. Defs. Instead, AANR-East and White Tail contend that they have asserted injuries to the organizations themselves that are separate and distinct from the injuries alleged by the individual plaintiffs on behalf of their children and themselves.
III, 2, cl. 114. On Brief: Frank M. Feibelman, Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Upon those two bases, the district court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the claims of AANR-East and White Tail for lack of standing. See, e.g., American Canoe Ass'n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 517 (4th Cir. <> /Type /Font J.A. Richmond, Fredericksburg Potomac R.R. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. Thus, "a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." 1036, 160 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2005). endobj . By focusing on the intrusiveness of the statute and the extent to which it impaired the ability of AANR-East to carry its message to summer camp attendees, the court was effectively making a merits determination. This injury is defined as the invasion of a legally protected interest that is both (a) concrete and See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 115. Listed below are those cases in which Const., art. Roche enclosed a press release issued by AANR-East indicating that, in light of the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction, AANR-East was forced to cancel camp because the new Virginia statutory requirements "place[d] an undue burden on too many parents who had planned to send their children" to the camp. ", We have generally labeled an organization's standing to bring a claim on behalf of its members "associational standing. << 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) (explaining that an organizational plaintiff may have standing to sue on its own behalf "to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the association itself may enjoy"). On August 10, 2004, the district court held a hearing on the Commissioner's motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Gaston LLC. Webhampton, nh police log january 2021. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67, 117 S.Ct. 1917. The doctrine of mootness flows from the constitutional limitation of federal court jurisdiction to actual "Cases" or "Controversies." AANR-East contends that the amended statute will reduce the size of the camp every year because not all would-be campers have parents or guardians who are available to register and attend a week of camp during the summer, as evidenced by the fact that 24 campers who would have otherwise attended camp by themselves in June 2004 were unable to do so because of their parents' inability or unwillingness to attend. J.A. <> ACLU-VA's Statement on Gov. MFk t,:.FW8c1L&9aX:
rbl1 ; see also White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 459 (4th Cir. "To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed." For the reasons stated above, we reverse the order dismissing the First Amendment claim brought by AANR-East for lack of standing and remand for further proceedings. Implicit in the district court's explanation appears to be the conclusion that AANR-East and White Tail both failed to satisfy the first Lujan requirement for standing under Article III that the plaintiff demonstrate the existence of an injury in fact. J.A. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). 2005) (citations and quotations omitted). or AANR-East because their `organizational standing' derives from that of the anonymous plaintiffs." 2130. Contact us. /BaseFont /Courier endobj Right to Send Children to Nudist Summer Camp,White Tail v. Stoube. Use our proprietary AI tool CaseIQ to find other relevant judgments with just one click. endobj On July 5, 2005, the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court and reinstated the case. WebWhite Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 459 SALT INSTITUTE v. LEAVITT 3 (4th Cir. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. /Author <> On August 10, 2004, the judge dismissed the case, holding that it was moot and that the plaintiffs do not have standing. endstream The complaint The district court explained that AANR-East and White Tail lack standing in their own right because the statute imposed only a "minimal requirement" that "[did] not prevent [White Tail] and AANR-East from disseminating their message of social nudism." 23 0 obj of Commrs. The American Association for Nude Recreation-Eastern Region, Inc. ("AANR-East"), White Tail Park, Inc. ("White Tail"), and six individual plaintiffs appeal from the order of the district court dismissing their complaint for lack of standing. 9 0 obj "A justiciable case or controversy requires a `plaintiff [who] has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation of federal court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf.'" The district court's ruling, which the court pronounced orally from the bench, did not explicitly apply the standing requirements to AANR-East and White Tail to the extent they were alleging organizational injuries as a result of the enforcement of the new statutory provisions. 2005) .. 11 STA TU TES AZ. Although the First Amendment challenge to section 35.1-18 mounted by AANR-East may ultimately prove unsuccessful we express no opinion on the merits here AANR-East is an appropriate party to raise this challenge. <> >> 1991). /ModDate <443A32303138313030313135323533385A> . And, although AANR-East relocated its camp in 2004, it has already applied for a permit to operate the camp at White Tail Park in the summer of 2005. In June 2004, Robert Roche, president of AANR-East, applied for a permit to operate the youth nudist camp scheduled for late July 2004. 2130 (explaining that "[a]t the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice," but in response to a summary judgment motion, "the plaintiff can no longer rest on such `mere allegations,' [and] must `set forth' by affidavit or other evidence `specific facts'" establishing standing (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. On Brief: Frank M. Feibelman, Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. John Kenneth Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Thus, we turn to the injury in fact requirement. See J.A. On appeal, White Tail and AANR-East do not claim to have associational standing, given that neither organization is pursuing any claims on behalf of the individual plaintiffs. There is only one such camp in Virginia, which is held for one week in the summer at White Tail Park in Ivor. Opinion by Traxler, J. 2002)). AANR-East leased the 45-acre campground that ordinarily attracts about 1000 weekend visitors who come to engage in nude recreation and interact with other individuals and families who practice social nudism. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Web1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) - ii - CASES ACLU of Ohio Found., Inc. v. Bd. 24 0 obj v. Giuliani, 143 F.3d 638, 649 (2nd Cir. endobj 2005) ("[W]hen a defendant raises standing as the basis for a motion under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss for lack of subject The standing requirement must be satisfied by individual and organizational plaintiffs alike. During the 2004 session, Virginia General Assembly has passed a bill that prohibits the licensing of nudist camps for juveniles, which is defined as a camp attended by juveniles without a parent, grandparent or legal guardian in attendance. % We turn first to the question of mootness. In fact, it applied for the permit prior to the August 10, 2004, hearing on the Commissioner's motion to dismiss. On July 15, the district court denied the preliminary injunction after a hearing. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. <> White Tail Park also serves as home for a small number of permanent residents. 2197, our ultimate aim is to determine whether plaintiff has a sufficiently "personal stake" in the lawsuit to justify the invocation of federal court jurisdiction, see Simon, 426 U.S. at 38, 96 S.Ct. If a plaintiff's legally protected interest hinged on whether a given claim could succeed on the merits, then "every unsuccessful plaintiff will have lacked standing in the first place." AANR-East has not identified its liberty interest at stake or developed this claim further. 18 0 obj denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. Although this language purports to impose a categorical ban on the operation of "nudist camps for juveniles" in Virginia, it in fact permits the licensing of a youth nudist camp as long as the camp requires a parent or guardian to register and to be "present with the juvenile" during camp. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. J.A. (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original), and that any injury will likely "be redressed by a favorable decision," id. Decided July 5, 2005. Because the standing elements are "an indispensable part of the plaintiff's case, each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation." We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982). . Ultimately, however, AANR-East was able to operate its youth nudist camp by relocating to a neighboring state. . We turn first to the question of mootness. Having concluded that the claims of AANR-East and White Tail are not moot, we next consider whether these organizations have standing to raise them in federal court. . 57. 114. Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR., United States District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation. WebWhite Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 458 (4th Cir. Webv. 1997). endobj /Build <467954656B277320504446204D656C6420436F6D6D65726369616C2056657273696F6E2031302E34206173206F662046656272756172792032302C20323031372031383A34313A3130> Regardless of whether the district court technically addressed this issue, this court is obliged to address any standing issue that arises, even if it was never presented to the district court. 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988). See Doe v. Obama, 631 F.3d 157, 160 (4th Cir. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 04-2002. trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant" instead of "the independent action of some third party not before the court," id. According to AANR-East, twenty-four campers who would have otherwise attended the camp were precluded from doing so because no parent, grandparent, or guardian was able to accompany them to White Tail Park during the week scheduled for camp. << An organization suffers such an injury when the plaintiff alleges that a defendants practices have hampered an organizations stated objectives causing the organization to 115. 7 0 obj 2005)). See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 101-02, 118 S.Ct. {{{;}#tp8_\. 2011); White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 458-59 (4th Cir. AANR-East leased the 45-acre campground that ordinarily attracts about 1000 weekend visitors who come to engage in nude recreation and interact with other individuals and families who practice social nudism. Like the doctrine of mootness, the standing limitation is derived from the cases or controversies requirement of Article III. We have appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Found WHITE TAIL PARK, INC. v. STROUBE useful? /Encoding /WinAnsiEncoding /Title <> /BaseFont /Helvetica >> John Kenneth Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. or AANR-East because their `organizational standing' derives from that of the anonymous plaintiffs." . The amended statute requires a parent, grandparent or guardian to accompany any juvenile who attends a nudist summer camp: Va. Code 35.1-18 (emphasis added). J.A. <> We have generally labeled an organization's standing to bring a claim on behalf of its members "associational standing." The context of the district court's statement, which followed a discussion of the individual plaintiffs' inability to establish injury in fact, supports this view. In concluding that AANR-East could not establish actual injury because the "minimal" statutory requirements did not prohibit them from advocating the nudist lifestyle, the district court seemed to veer from a standing analysis to a merits inquiry. %PDF-1.4 2004), cert. 1 1988. /Subtype /Type1 Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. Irish Lesbian Gay Org. "A justiciable case or controversy requires a `plaintiff [who] has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation of federal court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial powers on his behalf.'" See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511, 95 S.Ct. 103. White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 460 (4th Cir. See Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 422-23, 108 S.Ct. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct. The camp is highly supervised and there is no indication that any sexual activity takes place or that children are physically or psychologically harmed in any way. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. They contend that the new requirements of the Virginia statute imposed an unconstitutional burden on their right to guide the upbringing of their children and their children's right to privacy and expressive association. /Type /Font Virginia law requires any person who owns or operates a summer camp or campground facility in Virginia to be licensed by the Food and Environmental Services Division of the Virginia Department of Health ("VDH"). 12 0 obj Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction together with the complaint. WebAANR-East, White Tail, and three sets of parents sued Robert B. Stroube, Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Health (responsible for issuing the licenses). The camp agenda included traditional activities such as arts and crafts, campfire sing-alongs, swimming, and sports. Like all applicants for permits under section 35.1-18 at that time, Roche was required to sign and submit with the application an acknowledgment that Virginia law banned the operation of nudist camps for juveniles as defined by Virginia Code 35.1-18. stream The standing requirement must be satisfied by individual and organizational plaintiffs alike. 114. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) and White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 45859 (4th Cir.2005). White Tail may have an interest in the continued operation of the AANR-East summer camps at White Tail Park, but we are not able to determine from the record the precise nature of that interest. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has submitted declarations from two of its members and from its Vice President of Environmental Protection and Restoration. . The district court explained further that the organizational plaintiffs, AANR-East and White Tail, lacked standing to assert their own constitutional rights, if any, because they were unable to establish actual or imminent injury resulting from the statutory requirement that all campers be accompanied by a parent or guardian. The gravamen of the standing issue for AANR-East is whether it has sufficiently demonstrated that it "ha[s] suffered an `injury in fact.'" x \ . 2003); Friends for Ferrell Parkway, 282 F.3d at 320. 9-16, with Lujan v. Defs. Instead, AANR-East and White Tail contend that they have asserted injuries to the organizations themselves that are separate and distinct from the injuries alleged by the individual plaintiffs on behalf of their children and themselves.