Kowalski v. Tesmer

Supreme Court of the United States · 2004 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsStandingThird-Party StandingYounger Abstentionstandingthird-party standingprudential standingclose relationship

Facts

Michigan amended its constitution so that an accused who pleads guilty or nolo contendere has an appeal only by leave of court, not as of right, and the legislature codified a practice generally prohibiting appointment of appellate counsel for indigents who plead guilty, subject to certain exceptions. A federal suit challenged that practice and statute under § 1983. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the only challengers before it were two attorneys seeking to assert the rights of hypothetical indigent defendants who would be denied appellate counsel. The Court assumed without deciding that the attorneys satisfied Article III and addressed only whether they could assert the rights of others.

Issue

Whether attorneys who do not represent any existing indigent criminal defendant denied appellate counsel may invoke third-party standing to challenge Michigan's procedure for denying appointed appellate counsel to indigent defendants who plead guilty. More specifically, whether the attorneys showed the required close relationship with the right-holders and hindrance to those right-holders' ability to protect their own interests.

Rule

A party generally must assert his own legal rights and interests and may not rest a claim on the rights of third parties. Third-party standing is permitted only in limited circumstances, and the party seeking it must show both a close relationship with the person possessing the right and a hindrance to that person's ability to protect his own interests. Outside certain recognized contexts not implicated here, the Court does not look favorably on third-party standing.

🔒

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 Ohio, attorneys Maya Benton and Luis Romero file a § 1983 action in federal court challenging a new state rule that limits appointed appellate counsel for certain indigent misdemeanor defendants. They do not currently represent any affected defendant, but allege they expect to be appointed in future cases involving people who will be denied counsel.

Do the attorneys most likely have prudential third-party standing to assert the defendants' constitutional rights?

Explanation. The general rule is that a litigant must assert his own rights, not those of third parties. Third-party standing requires both a close relationship with the right-holder and a hindrance to the right-holder's ability to protect his own interests. Under the majority opinion, a merely future attorney-client relationship with unknown persons is too hypothetical to qualify as a close relationship. (Derived from Kowalski v. Tesmer (2004).)