Bennett v. Napolitano

Supreme Court of Arizona · Torts

Tortsstandingseparation of powerslegislative standingjudicial restraintstandinglegislative standingtaxpayer standing

Facts

After the legislature enacted and sent the governor the fiscal year 2004 general appropriations bill and three omnibus reconciliation bills, the governor item vetoed numerous provisions and the legislature later adjourned sine die without further action on the vetoed items. Four legislators—the Senate President, House Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, and House Majority Leader—brought this special action challenging eleven vetoes, mainly involving funding reductions and two provisions in the Education and Health and Welfare ORBs. The legislators argued the vetoed provisions were not appropriations and that the governor therefore exceeded her item veto authority. They did not obtain authorization from their chambers to sue on behalf of the legislature, and they did not allege any personal injury distinct from their institutional objection to the vetoes.

Issue

Did the four legislators have standing to challenge the governor's item vetoes, either as legislators or as taxpayers, and, if not, should the court nonetheless waive standing and decide the merits because of the public importance of the dispute?

Rule

In Arizona, standing is required as a matter of sound judicial policy, especially in constitutional cases against the government. Legislators challenging executive action must show a particularized injury personal to themselves, not merely an abstract or institutional loss of political power; absent authorization to represent the legislature as a whole, a small number of legislators ordinarily cannot sue on the legislature's behalf. Taxpayer standing does not extend to challenges that do not allege expenditure of funds for an illegal or unconstitutional purpose. Even though Arizona courts are not constitutionally barred from hearing cases lacking standing, waiver is reserved for exceptional cases, generally those involving issues of great public importance likely to recur.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Arizona, five members of the state house from Phoenix and Tucson vote for a transportation bill that passes both chambers. After the governor strikes several spending provisions and signs the rest, the five legislators file suit alleging the vetoes made their votes less effective and reduced their political power.

Do the five legislators have standing as legislators?

Explanation. The majority required legislators challenging executive action to show a particularized injury personal to themselves. A claimed dilution of vote effectiveness after a bill has passed and been sent to the governor is only an abstract institutional loss of political power, not a personal injury. The court did not hold legislators can never sue, only that this kind of injury is insufficient. (Derived from Bennett v. Napolitano (n.d.).)