Gregory v. Shurtleff

Decision Date19 March 2013
Docket Number20110473.,Nos. 20110277,s. 20110277
Citation299 P.3d 1098,730 Utah Adv. Rep. 29
PartiesTom GREGORY, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Mark SHURTLEFF, et al., Defendants and Appellees.
CourtUtah Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

David R. Irvine, Janet I. Jenson, Alan L. Smith, Salt Lake City, for appellants.

John E. Swallow, Att'y Gen., Brent A. Burnett, Asst. Att'y Gen., Salt Lake City, for appellees.

John L. Fellows, Robert H. Rees, Eric N. Weeks, Peter Asplund, Salt Lake City, for amicus curiae.

Justice DURHAM, opinion of the Court:

INTRODUCTION

¶ 1 Appellants brought suit to enjoin the enforcement of a law, claiming that the law violated the state constitution in four respects. The district court dismissed the first two claims and rejected the second two claims on summary judgment. On appeal, we consider whether Appellants had standing to bring these claims in the first place. We hold that, although they lacked the personal injury required for traditional standing, Appellants had public-interest standing to bring the first two claims. We also hold that they did not have standing to bring the second two claims under either the traditional or the public-interest doctrine of standing, and we accordingly vacate the grant of summary judgment on those claims and remand to the district court for dismissal. Finally, we hold that although Appellants had standing to bring the first two claims, the district court properly dismissed the claims under Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 12(b)(6).

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 In March 2008, the legislature enacted Senate Bill 2 (the Bill). The Bill contained some fourteen items relating to education, establishing new programs and amending existing programs; it also contained funding provisions for some programs.

¶ 3 Appellants are a group of current and former legislators, other elected and unelected government officials, and self-described “good citizens.” They include current and former members of the Utah State Board of Education (the Board). However, they appear in their individual capacities, and the Board itself is not a party to this litigation. In May 2008, Appellants filed suit in district court against the State's Attorney General, its Treasurer, and the Executive Director of the Department of Human Resources (collectively, Appellees), seeking a declaration that the Bill was unconstitutional and an injunction against its implementation, as well as an award of costs and fees.

¶ 4 Appellants claimed the Bill was unconstitutional in four respects. The first two claims fall under Article VI, Section 22 of the Utah Constitution, which provides that “no bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.” (Emphasis added.) Appellants argue that the Bill as a whole violates this provision in two respects: first, they argue that it contained “more than one subject”; second, that its subject was not “clearly expressed in its title” (collectively, the Article VI Claims). The second two claims fall under Article X, Section 3 of the Utah Constitution, which provides that [t]he general control and supervision of the public education system shall be vested in a State Board of Education.” Appellants argue that two items of the Bill violate this provision: first, the item that delegates the administration of the Teacher Salary Supplement Program to the Department of Human Resources; second, the item that delegates textbook approval to private entities (collectively, the Article X Claims).

¶ 5 Appellees moved to dismiss the Article VI Claims pursuant to rule 12(b)(6) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. They subsequently moved to dismiss the Article X Claims for lack of standing and moved in the alternative for partial summary judgment on those claims. The district court granted Appellees' motion to dismiss the Article VI Claims for failure to state a claim, and later granted the State's motion for summary judgment on the Article X Claims. It did not rule on the alternative motion to dismiss those claims for lack of standing.

¶ 6 Appellants timely appealed.1 We permitted the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel of the Utah Legislature to appear as amicus curiae.2 At oral argument, we asked the parties to discuss whether Appellants had standing to bring any of their claims. We then ordered supplemental briefing on the standing question in regard to the Article X Claims.

¶ 7 We have jurisdiction under Utah Code section 78A–3–102(3)(j).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 8 We review the grant of a motion to dismiss for correctness, granting no deference to the decision of the district court.” State v. Apotex Corp., 2012 UT 36, ¶ 16, 282 P.3d 66 (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, [o]n appeal from a motion to dismiss, we review the facts only as they are alleged in the complaint. We accept the factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Id. ¶ 3 (internal quotation marks omitted).

ANALYSIS

¶ 9 Since standing is a jurisdictional requirement, we first must determine whether Appellants have standing to bring any of their claims. Unlike in the federal system, our law recognizes that appropriate plaintiffs without individualized injury may nevertheless possess standing to bring certain claims treating issues of great public importance. We determine that the issues underlying the Article VI Claims rise to this level and that Appellants are appropriate parties to bring these claims; Appellants therefore have standing to raise the Article VI Claims. The issues underlying the Article X claims, however, do not rise to this level, and furthermore Appellants are not appropriately situated to bring them. Accordingly, they do not have standing to raise the Article X claims.

¶ 10 On the merits of the district court's dismissal of the Article VI Claims, we hold that even on the facts alleged by Appellants, the Bill does not violate either the single-subject or clear-title rules of Article VI, Section 22. Accordingly, the dismissal is affirmed.

I. STANDING

¶ 11 [I]n Utah, as in the federal system, standing is a jurisdictional requirement.” Brown v. Div. of Water Rights of the Dep't of Natural Res., 2010 UT 14, ¶ 12, 228 P.3d 747.3 Furthermore, [s]tanding is an issue that a court can raise sua sponte at any time.” State v. Tuttle, 780 P.2d 1203, 1207 (Utah 1989).

A. Utah Recognizes Public–Interest Standing in Matters of Great Constitutional or Public Importance

¶ 12 “Unlike the federal system, the judicial power of the state of Utah is not constitutionally restricted by the language of Article III of the United States Constitution requiring cases' and ‘controversies,’ since no similar requirement exists in the Utah Constitution.” Jenkins v. Swan, 675 P.2d 1145, 1149 (Utah 1983).4 While it is “the usual rule that one must be personally adversely affectedbefore he has standing to prosecute an action .... it is also true this Court may grant standing where matters of great public interest and societal impact are concerned.” Jenkins v. State, 585 P.2d 442, 443 (Utah 1978).5

¶ 13 [D]espite our recognition of this Court's power to grant standing where matters of great public interest and societal impact are concerned,” however, this Court will not readily relieve a plaintiff of the salutory requirement of showing a real and personal interest in the dispute.” Jenkins v. Swan, 675 P.2d at 1150 (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore,

we engage in a three-step inquiry in reviewing the question of a plaintiff's standing to sue. The first step in the inquiry will be directed to the traditional criteria of the plaintiff's personal stake in the controversy.... If the plaintiff does not have standing under the first step, we will then address the question of whether there is anyone who has a greater interest in the outcome of the case than the plaintiff. If there is no one, and if the issue is unlikely to be raised at all if the plaintiff is denied standing, this Court will grant standing.... The Court will deny standing when a plaintiff does not satisfy the first requirement of the analysis and there are potential plaintiffs with a more direct interest in the issues who can more adequately litigate the issues. The third step in the analysis is to decide if the issues raised by the plaintiff are of sufficient public importance in and of themselves to grant him standing.

Id. (emphases added).6

¶ 14 In a more recent case, we summarized this alternative basis for standing as follows: [T]he statutory and the traditional common law tests are not the only avenues to gain standing; Utah law also allows parties to gain standing if they can show that they are an appropriate party raising issues of significant public importance ....” Cedar Mountain Envtl., Inc. v. Tooele Cnty. ex rel. Tooele Cnty. Comm'n, 2009 UT 48, ¶ 8, 214 P.3d 95 (emphasis added).

¶ 15 In Jenkins v. Swan we framed the middle step of the “three-step inquiry” as “the question of whether there is anyone who has a greater interest in the outcome of the case than the plaintiff.” 675 P.2d at 1150. In Cedar Mountain, however, we modified the inquiry, requiring a determination of whether the plaintiff is an appropriate party.” 2009 UT 48, ¶ 8, 214 P.3d 95 (emphasis added). This shift in analysis is explained in intervening precedent. In 2006 we explained:

Under the alternative test, a petitioning party must first establish that it is an appropriate party to raise the issue in the dispute before the court. A party meets this burden by demonstrating that it has the interest necessary to effectively assist the court in developing and reviewing all relevant legal and factual questions and that the issues are unlikely to be raised if the party is denied standing. We recognize that there is language in both Jenkins [ v. Swan] and subsequent cases suggesting that in making this determination the court may grant standing only to the party...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Laws v. Grayeyes
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • 30 Septiembre 2021
    ...meet ‘traditional’ standing requirements." Infra ¶ 77.¶70 The essence of my response is set forth in my opinions in Gregory v. Shurtleff , 2013 UT 18, 299 P.3d 1098, and In re Gestational Agreement , 2019 UT 40, 449 P.3d 69. There, I acknowledged that the Utah Constitution lacks a "case or ......
  • In re N.T.B
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • 1 Agosto 2019
    ...not establish a lack of constitutional authority, but invites inquiry as to the source of the jurisdictional limit.¶59 For example, in Gregory v. Shurtleff , we suggested that our standing jurisprudence reflects " ‘judge-made’ " rules regarding our exercise of jurisdiction. 2013 UT 18, ¶ 16......
  • Kan. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 20 Enero 2017
    ...appropriations and substantive legislation, but all provisions must be closely related to the bill's subject); Gregory v. Shurtleff , 299 P.3d 1098, 1114–15 (Utah 2013) (declining a per se rule that appropriations cannot mix with substantive legislation under single-subject rule); State v. ......
  • Laws v. Grayeyes
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • 30 Septiembre 2021
    ...standing requirements." Infra ¶ 77. ¶70 The essence of my response is set forth in my opinions in Gregory v. Shurtleff, 2013 UT 18, 299 P.3d 1098, and In re Gestational Agreement, 2019 UT 40, 449 P.3d 69. There, I acknowledged that the Utah Constitution lacks a "case or controversy" clause ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Statutory Class Actions: Developments And Strategies
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 26 Febrero 2015
    ...during the Supreme Court's next term. To read this article in full, please click here. Footnotes See, e.g., Gregory v. Shurtleff, 299 P.3d 1098, 1102-03 (Utah 2013); Harrison v. Monroe Cnty., 716 S.W.2d 263, 265-67 (Mo. See, e.g., IndyMac Bank v. Miguel, 184 P.3d 821, 830 (Haw. Ct. App. 200......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT