Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s requirement for standing to challenge agency action in Allen V. Wright:

In Allen v. Wright (1984), the respondents were African-American parents of children who were attending public schools in seven states in school districts that were undergoing desegregation. The respondents alleged that the IRS did not adopt sufficient standards and procedures to fulfill its obligation to deny tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools.

As a result of the IRS’s inaction, the plaintiffs alleged that they were harmed directly and their children’s opportunity to obtain an education in desegregated public schools were interfered with. Therefore, the respondents brought a nationwide class action suit on behalf of themselves, their children, and other parents of black children attending public school systems undergoing or which may in the future undergo desegregation pursuant to court order.

The respondents requested three things: (1) declaratory judgment that the IRS tax-exemption practices are unlawful, (2) an injunction requiring the IRS to deny tax exemptions to a broader class of private schools than the class of racially

O’Connor requirements for standing to challenge an agency action were constitutionally sound. She based her arguments on Article III of the Constitution and established case law. The majority’s decision should not have been surprising to anyone who is knowledgeable about the doctrine of standing.

The respondents’ strategy was problematic because they attempted to apply standing in an area where the Court has historically demonstrated that standing is difficult, if not impossible, to claim. O’Connor argued that the Court has consistently held that an asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with the law is not sufficient it and of itself to confer jurisdiction on a federal court. Although one would think that ensuring that the government agencies fulfill its legal duties would be a reasonable function of the judiciary, O’Connor stated otherwise. She maintained that it was the Executive branch’s

Scalia argued that the injury in fact test required more than an injury to a cognizable interest. He stated that the test required that the party seeking review be himself among the injured. None of the respondents alleged that they had been directly affected by the government action. The only argument that they had for standing was their special interest in the subject.

Some topics in this essay:
III Constitution, Allen Wright, Secretary Interior, Justice O’Connor, Justice Scalia, Supreme Court, III Additionally, Allen Lucus, APA APA, Defenders Wildlife, article iii, iii constitution, article iii constitution, respondents standing, standing challenge agency, scalia argued, o’connor stated, ruled respondents, court ruled, private schools, court ruled respondents, challenge agency, agency action, challenge agency action, discriminatory private schools,