Winpisinger v. Watson
| Citation | 628 F.2d 133,202 U.S.App.D.C. 133 |
| Decision Date | 10 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1160,80-1160 |
| Parties | William W. WINPISINGER et al., Appellants v. Jack WATSON, Secretary of the Cabinet and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs et al. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. Civil Action No. 79-3471).
Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom John Silard, William A. Dobrovir, Washington, D. C., and Erwin Chemerinsky were on brief, for appellants.
Paul Blankenstein, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Alice Daniel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles F. C. Ruff, U. S. Atty., Robert E. Kopp and Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on brief for appellees, Watson, Secretary of the Cabinet & Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs, et al.
William R. Glendon, Washington, D. C., with whom Anthony F. Essaye, Jerry W. Markham, Timothy G. Smith and Robert B. Barnett, Washington, D. C., were on brief, for appellee, Carter-Mondale Presidential Committee, Inc.
Before ROBINSON and MacKINNON, Circuit Judges, and AUBREY E. ROBINSON, Jr. *, United States District Judge for the District of Columbia.
Opinion PER CURIAM.
Appellants, supporters of Senator Edward M. Kennedy in his quest for the Presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, 1 appeal from the dismissal by the district court of their action alleging that the defendants, members of President Carter's administration 2 and the Carter-Mondale Committee, have illegally employed their public authority and expended federal funds to promote the President's renomination. Appellants contend that this results in constitutional violations by diminishing the effect of their efforts for Senator Kennedy. They accordingly seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the practices detailed in their complaint.
The district court, in an order dated February 7, 1980, 3 and an accompanying memorandum opinion, 4 dismissed the complaint for lack of standing by appellants to bring the action.
We affirm, both on the basis of lack of standing and on the ground that prudential considerations would preclude the court from exercising jurisdiction in any event.
Appellants, plaintiffs in the district court, are seven of Senator Kennedy's supporters. The appellees, defendants in the district court, are seven Cabinet Officers, seven Presidential assistants, and the Carter-Mondale Presidential Committee, the principal campaign committee supporting the renomination candidacy of President Carter. The gravamen of appellants' allegations is capsulized in the introductory paragraph to their complaint:
This is an action for declaratory judgment and injunction against defendants' misuse of federal power and federal funds to purchase the Presidential renomination of Jimmy Carter, impairing the operation of the Nation's elective process embodied in the Constitution and injuring plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the First and Fifth Amendments, as voters, contributors and participants in the process of Presidential nomination. Defendants are Presidential subordinates engaged in a concerted course of conduct designed to use the public treasury for salaries, travel expenses, costs of meetings and other political outlays; to grant and withhold public employment based upon political support by the employee; and to promise and award federal programs and funds to communities as political inducements and rewards, all in order to obtain support for President Carter's renomination. Defendants' course of conduct, using the federal treasury to buy renomination, threatens the integrity of our democratic system of government and debases the election of the highest public official in the land. 5
Although the appellants' 33-page complaint details numerous allegations in support of this general contention, a few specific examples, abstracted from the complaint, will provide a basis for a fuller understanding of the precise nature of the charges made against the defendants, and of our disposition of this appeal.
Appellants contend, for example, that defendant Jordan said that federal employees who were not barred from political activity by federal law are expected to perform political activities only for President Carter and that anyone in that category supporting Senator Kennedy would be dismissed. 6 Similarly, President Carter is alleged to have instructed the defendant members of his Administration to require their subordinates who were outside of the protection of the Civil Service Merit System to support his candidacy or suffer the threat of dismissal for refusing to do so. 7
Several types of charges dealing with the alleged misuse of federal funds are also made. The defendant federal officials are alleged to have used their time during normal working hours, for which time they are paid out of the federal treasury for their work as federal officials, on trips made and activities conducted for the principal purpose of promoting President Carter's renomination campaign. 8 Allegations are also made that on trips taken for campaign purposes only partial reimbursement to the federal treasury was made, if at all, and only after the trip was actually taken. This delay in making reimbursement acts, according to the complaint, as an interest free loan by the treasury to the Carter-Mondale Committee. 9
Similarly, the allegation is made that federal funds are being used to publish materials favorable to the President. For example, defendant Wexler is alleged to have had thousands of copies of a 49-page pamphlet entitled "The Record of President Carter's Administration" printed and mailed at federal expense. The purpose for this pamphlet is alleged to be the generation of support for the Carter campaign. 10 Defendant Weddington is alleged to have mailed 6,200 copies of a letter and glossy poster displaying 100 photographs of women appointees in the Carter Administration two days after Senator Kennedy criticized "the Carter position concerning women" in a speech. 11 Other allegations in the complaint contend that Kennedy supporters were not invited to attend Presidential functions, 12 or to travel on the President's aircraft "Air Force One" because of their preference for Senator Kennedy. 13
Political patronage in hiring is also contained in the allegations of the complaint; the defendant federal officials are alleged to have hired federal employees on the basis of political affiliation. For example, appellants contend that the 275,000 people to be hired to take the 1980 census are to be chosen on the basis of "patronage conferred upon those political figures who had or would support the Carter candidacy." 14 Appellants also identify the resignation of an Ambassador as a consequence of refusing to support the President's renomination and instead supporting Senator Kennedy. 15 Along the same lines, another person is alleged to have had the suggestion made to him that he would receive favorable consideration for a high federal appointment as a reward for his supporting the Carter candidacy. 16
Finally, appellants contend that the granting of federal funds to states and cities has been conditioned upon officials of those entities supporting the Carter candidacy, 17 and that the timing of the announcement of federal grants has been coordinated to provide the maximum benefit to President Carter's renomination campaign. As a corollary to this allegation, appellants charge that in areas where official support has been for Senator Kennedy, assistance has been denied. 18
Collectively, appellants contend that the use by the defendant federal officials of the resources of the federal government provide the Carter-Mondale Committee with federal support. This, in turn, is alleged to harm appellants in four distinct ways. As supporters of Senator Kennedy, they charge that the challenged actions violate their First Amendment right to "free expression and free association in the electoral process in support of their preferred candidates." As voters, they argue that these practices are alleged to "diminish, dilute and nullify plaintiffs' votes, plaintiffs' lawful contributions of money, and their other efforts to nominate the candidates of their choice." 19
As contributors to Senator Kennedy's campaign they claim infringement of a right to effectiveness of their contributions equal to those of President Carter's supporters. And two appellants, candidates for delegate seats at the Democratic National Convention, assert that the conduct complained of has lessened their chances of selection. 20
In addition, appellants assume several more general positions. Violation of appellants' rights to equal protection of the laws, secured by the Fifth Amendment, is alleged to occur by defendants "depriving plaintiffs of an equal voice in the Democratic Presidential nomination process by their use of the federal treasury and federal power in support of the Carter nomination." 21 And violations of laws relating to the election process, appropriations and the legislative authority of Congress are also alleged. 22
Appellants request injunctive and declaratory relief against the practices complained of. 23
The district court dismissed this action for lack of standing. The court did not reach, for that reason, the issue of whether prudential considerations would also bar plaintiffs' claims. Although we affirm the dismissal, we do so on the basis of both lack of standing and prudential concerns. As our discussion on these issues reflects, we do not consider these two concepts to be clearly severable in this case; consequently, we rely upon both grounds for our affirmance.
Standing is an absolute condition which the plaintiff must meet in order to maintain an action. "Standing doctrines are employed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Del. Pub. Sch. Litig.
...show he lost because of disciplinary petition filed against him); Winpisinger v. Watson , 86 F.R.D. 77, 78–79 (D.D.C.), aff'd , 628 F.2d 133 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (holding that supporters of Senator Edward Kennedy lacked standing to challenge results of primary where their injury resulted from "......
-
Nader v. The Democratic Nat. Committee
...speculative inferences and assumptions in any endeavor to connect the alleged injury with [the challenged conduct]." Winpisinger v. Watson, 628 F.2d 133, 139 (D.C.Cir.1980). 3. The Court Dismisses the Voter Plaintiffs from the Amended The defendants raise a number of threshold objections to......
-
Moore v. U.S. House of Representatives
...482 (1905); Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).40 628 F.2d 133, 141 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 929, 100 S.Ct. 1867, 64 L.Ed.2d 282 (1980).41 360 F.2d 505 (D.C.Cir.1966).42 316 U.S. 491, 62 S.Ct. 1173, 8......
-
People Organized for Welfare and Employment Rights (P.O.W.E.R.) v. Thompson
...capital punishment. The injury that P.O.W.E.R. alleged is as tenuous as that held insufficient to confer standing in Winpisinger v. Watson, 628 F.2d 133 (D.C.Cir.1980), where the supporters of one Presidential candidate alleged that the federal government was illegally supporting a rival's ......