No. 14-460 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Petitioner, v. ANDY KERR, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF THE COLORADO UNION OF TAXPAYERS FOUNDATION, MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION, AND 22 COLORADO STATE LEGISLATORS, IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STEVEN J. LECHNER Counsel of Record GINA M. CANNAN MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION 2596 South Lewis Way Lakewood, Colorado 80227 (303) 292-2021 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Amicus Curiae [Individual Legislators Listed On Inside Cover] ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM ADDITIONAL AMICI Sen. Kevin Lundberg (SD 15) Sen. Ellen Roberts (SD 6) Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg (HD 65) Rep. Justin Everett (HD 22) Rep. Spencer Swalm (HD 37) Rep. Janak Joshi (HD 16) Sen. Ted Harvey (SD 30) Sen. Kent Lambert (SD 9) Sen. Mark Scheffel (SD 4) Sen. Kevin Grantham (SD 2) Sen. Vicki Marble (SD 23) Rep. Dan Nordberg (HD 14) Rep. Frank McNulty (HD 43) Rep. Chris Holbert (HD 44) Rep. Kevin Priola (HD 56) Sen. Scott Renfroe (SD 13) Sen. Bill Cadman (SD 12) Sen. Steve King (SD 7) Sen. Greg Brophy (SD 1) Rep. Lori Saine (HD 63) Rep. Bob Gardner (HD 20) Sen. George Rivera (SD 3) i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether, after this Court’s decision in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), Plaintiffs’ claims that Colorado’s government is not republi- can in form remain non-justiciable political ques- tions. 2. Whether a minority of legislators have standing to challenge a law that allegedly dilutes their power to legislate on a particular subject. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................ i TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. iv IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................................................ 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................. 3 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................. 5 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ... 7 I. THE TENTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION UNDERMINES THE CONCEPT OF SEPARATION OF POWERS BY HOLD- ING THAT ARTICLE III COURTS MAY ADJUDICATE CLAIMS INVOLVING ABSTRACT INJURIES ............................. 7 II. THE TENTH CIRCUIT EVISCERATED THIS COURT’S LEGISLATIVE STAND- ING PRECEDENT BY HOLDING THAT INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS HAVE STANDING BASED ON ALLEGATIONS OF AN INCREMENTAL DIMINUTION IN INSTITUTIONAL POWER .................. 9 A. The Injury Alleged By Respondents Is A Diminution In Institutional Power, Not A Loss Of Any Private Right ......... 9 B. Respondents’ Alleged Injuries Are Not Caused By TABOR .............................. 17 C. Respondents’ Claims Are Not Redres- sable By A Federal Court .................... 19 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page III. THE TENTH CIRCUIT CONTRAVENED THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOC- TRINE BY HOLDING THAT A DIRECT CHALLENGE TO COLORADO’S RE- PUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT WAS NOT A POLITICAL QUESTION ...... 21 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 25 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Alaska Legislative Council v. Babbitt, 181 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ............................. 11, 12, 13, 14 Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) ...................... 7, 23 Baird v. Norton, 266 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 2001) ........................................................ 9, 11, 12, 13 Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534 (1986) ................................................. 16 Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ....... 15 Chenoweth v. Clinton, 181 F.3d 112 (D.C. Cir. 1999) .............................................................. 9, 14, 19 Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) ..... 10, 12, 19, 20 Colorado Union of Taxpayers Foundation v. City of Aspen, 2014CA1869 (Colo. Ct. App.) ............ 2 DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) ................................................................. 18, 20 Dep’t of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representa- tives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) ....................................... 16 Huber v. Colorado Mining Ass’n, 264 P.3d 884 (Colo. 2011) ................................................................ 4 Japan Whaling Ass’n v. American Cetacean Soc., 478 U.S. 221 (1986) .................................. 21, 23 Kerr v. Hickenlooper, 880 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (D. Colo. 2012) ............................................................. 4, 5 Kerr v. Hickenlooper, 744 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2014) ................................................................ passim v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Kerr v. Hickenlooper, 759 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 5, 24 Kucinich v. Bush, 236 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2002) ........................................................................ 15 Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007) ........................ 5 Lexmark Intern., Inc. v. Static Control Compo- nents, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014) ............................ 7 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ................................................................... 9, 19 Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849) ........... 21, 22, 23, 24 Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497 (2007) ............ 20 Moore v. United States House of Representa- tives, 733 F.2d 946 (D.C. Cir. 1984) .......................... 8 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) ........ 22 Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. State of Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912) .......... 22, 23, 24 Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) ............... 12 Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 826 (1997) .................. passim Rangel v. Boehner, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2013 WL 6487502 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2013) ....................... 20 Russell v. DeJongh, 491 F.3d 130 (3d Cir. 2007) ......... 8 Schaffer v. Clinton, 240 F.3d 878 (10th Cir. 2001) .................................................................... 8, 13 Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974) ........................................... 7 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page TABOR Foundation v. Colorado Bridge Enter- prise, 2014SC766 (Colo. S. Ct.) ................................. 2 TABOR Foundation v. Regional Transportation Dist., 13CV854 (Denver Dist. Ct.) ............................ 2 United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892) ................. 16 United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974) ................................................................... 7, 21 U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 11 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 1998) .......... 16 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Const. art. IV, § 4 .................................................. 4 Colo. Const. art. IV, § 11 ......................................... 3, 17 Colo. Const. art. IX, § 17 ............................................ 19 Colo. Const. art. IX, § 17(5) ........................................ 19 Colo. Const. art. X, § 2 .................................................. 3 Colo. Const. art. X, § 3(1)(a) ......................................... 3 Colo. Const. art. X, § 5 .................................................. 3 Colo. Const. art. X, § 7 .................................................. 3 Colo. Const. art. X, § 11 ................................................ 3 Colo. Const. art. X, § 20 ...................................... passim Colo. Const. art. X, § 20(1) ........................................ 4 Colo. Const. art. X, § 20(3)-(4) ................................ 20 Colo. Const. art. X, § 20(4)(a) ............................... 3, 4 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page RULES Supreme Court Rule 10 ................................................ 9 Supreme Court Rule 37.2 ............................................. 1 Supreme Court Rule 37.2(a)......................................... 1 OTHER Anthony Clark Arend & Catherine B. Lotrionte, Congress Goes to Court: The Past, Present, and Future of Legislator Standing, 25 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 209 (2001) ............................ 16, 22 The Federalist No. 48 (James Madison) (Clin- ton Rossiter ed., 1961) ............................................ 25 James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Fed- eral Convention of 1787 (W.W. Norton & Co. 1987) (1840) ............................................................. 15 John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, § 140 (1690) (C. B. Macpherson ed., 1980) ............. 15 Note, Standing in the Way of Separation of Powers: The Consequences of Raines v. Byrd, 112 Harv. L. Rev. 1741 (1999) ................................... 8 Randy E. Barnett, The Proper Scope of the Po- lice Power, 79 Notre Dame L. Rev. 429 (2004) ....... 14 1 AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.2, the Colo- rado Union of Taxpayers Foundation (“CUT”), Moun- tain States Legal Foundation (“MSLF”) and 22 members of the Colorado General Assembly respect- fully submit this Amici Curiae brief in support of Petitioner.1 --------------------------------- ---------------------------------