Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PEOPLE OF STATE OF ILL. EX REL SCOTT v. LANDRIEU

November 10, 1980

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS EX REL. WILLIAM J. SCOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MOON LANDRIEU, SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

William J. Scott, former Attorney General of the State of Illinois, filed this action on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois and (by way of Amended Complaint) on behalf of the State itself*fn1 against Secretary Moon Landrieu ("Landrieu" or the "Secretary")*fn2 of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") to require Landrieu to promulgate certain solar heating and cooling technology regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 5506. Landrieu filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment. Illinois has also filed a motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion and order, Landrieu's motion to dismiss is granted and Illinois' motion for summary judgment is denied.

Facts

On September 3, 1974 the Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. § 5501 et seq. (the "Act"), was enacted. Its stated purpose was "to provide for the demonstration within a three-year period of the practical use of solar heating technology, and to provide for the development and demonstration within a five-year period of the practical use of combined solar heating and cooling technology." 42 U.S.C. § 5501(b). Under the Act, the Secretary is required to:

  1. promulgate interim performance criteria for both
    solar heating and cooling components to be used in
    residential dwellings "as soon as possible after
    September 3, 1974" (42 U.S.C. § 5504, 5505);
  2. establish demonstration programs in which solar
    heating and cooling systems are to be installed in
    a number of buildings and monitored over a
    five-year period (42 U.S.C. § 5503(d), 5504(e));
    and
  3. "as soon as feasible, and utilizing data available
    from the [above] demonstration programs . . .
    determine, prescribe and publish in the Federal
    Register in accordance with the applicable
    provisions regarding rulemaking . . . (1)
    definitive performance criteria for solar heating
    and cooling components and systems to be used in

    residential dwellings . . . [and] (3) procedures
    whereby manufacturers of solar heating and combined
    solar heating and cooling components and systems
    shall have their products tested in order to
    provide certification that such products conform to
    the performance criteria established under
    paragraph (1)" (42 U.S.C. § 5506).

HUD has not yet published definitive performance criteria and certification procedures ("regulations"). Illinois alleges that its failure to do so violates the Act and requests the Court to issue a writ of mandamus or a mandatory injunction directing Landrieu to promulgate those regulations within ninety days of the date of judgment.*fn3 Illinois' claim is predicated on the contention that as major consumers of fuel and energy supplies, both the people and the State of Illinois have been "deprived of an adequate supply of a cheap, viable and environmentally beneficial fuel" by Landrieu's failure to comply with the statute, since promulgation of the regulations would stimulate commercial solar energy development.

Landrieu urges dismissal on two grounds. First he asserts that Illinois lacks standing to bring this action as parens patriae on behalf of its citizens and lacks standing to sue on its own behalf under general constitutional principles of standing. Second, Landrieu also claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) that Illinois' Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

"Standing"-In Two Senses

Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 485-86, 43 S.Ct. 597, 600-601, 67 L.Ed. 1078 (1923), is a direct bar to a state's efforts to sue the United States — to act as parens patriae — to enforce the rights of its citizens in their relationships with the federal government:

  We come next to consider whether the suit may be
  maintained by the State as the representative of its
  citizens. To this the answer is not doubtful . . .
  [T]he citizens of Massachusetts are also citizens of
  the United States. It cannot be conceded that a
  State, as parens patriae, may institute judicial
  proceedings to protect citizens of the United States
  from the operation of the statutes thereof. While the
  State, under some circumstances, may sue in that
  capacity for the protection of its citizens
  (Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 241, 21 S.Ct.
  331, 343, 45 L.Ed. 497), it is no part of its duty or
  power to enforce their rights in respect of their
  relations with the Federal Government. In that field
  it is the United States, and not the State, which
  represents them as parens patriae, when such
  representation becomes appropriate; and to the
  former, and not to the latter, they must look for
  such protective measures as flow from that status.

Thus as stated in 13 Wright, Miller & Cooper Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3531, at 233 (1975):

  It has been clearly ruled that states may not as
  parens patriae assert the rights of their citizens
  against the federal government, since the federal
  government ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.