◆ SpookStack

Based on the foregoing, this Court deter- mines that Plaintiffs, are entitled to no re- lief and that their requests for declaratory and injunctive relief will be denied. The foregoing constitutes this Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Ww © © KEYNUMBER SYSTEM - 7 " James A. McCLURE, United States Senator, Idaho, Plaintiff, | Vv. James Earl CARTER, President of the United States; and Abner J. Mikva, Defendants. Civ. No. 79-1340. United States’ District Court, / D. Idaho. May 5, 1981. United States senator brought action challenging appointment of former con- gressman to position as circuit judge for United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. .The three- judge district court held that despite stat- ute purporting to allow any member of Congress to challenge appointment of any judge to the Court of Appeals for the Dis- trict of Columbia made during the 96th Congress provided that the challenge was based on the ineligibility clause of the Con- stitution, senator did not have standing to bring the suit, which alleged that appoint- ment was unconstitutional because the con- gressman appointed to the seat on the Court of Appeals for the District of Colum- bia had been serving in Congress at the time that the salary for the judgeship was increased. Dismissed. McCLURE v. CARTER Cite as 513 F.Supp. 265 (1981) 265 1. Federal Civil Procedure e103 Article HII of the Constitution requires that parties to a lawsuit have such a per- sonal stake in the outcome of the controver- sy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional ques- tions. U.S.C.A.Const. Art. 3, § 2, cl. 1. , 2. Federal Civil Procedure <= 103 Despite statute purporting to allow any member of Congress to challenge the ap- pointment of any judge to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia made during the 96th Congress provided that the challenge was based on the ineligibility clause of the Constitution, United States senator did not have standing, either in his individual or official capacity, to challenge propriety of appointment to seat on United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia of a United States congressman who was serving in Congress at the time that the salary for the judgeship was in- creased. 5 U.S.C.A. § 5818 note; U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 6, cl. 2; Art. 3, § 2, el. 1. 3. Federal Civil Procedure @= 103 In some circumstances, a legislator has standing to sue as a legislator when he or she would not have standing as an individu- al; touchstone is whether legislator’s inter- est in maintaining the effectiveness of his votes is sufficient to confer standing to challenge an action impairing that effec- tiveness. Iver J. Longeteig, Runft & Longeteig, Chartered, Boise, Idaho, David H. Martin, Santarelli & Gimer, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff. Neil H. Koslowe, Sp. Litigation Counsel, Civil Division, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants. ~ Before FLETCHER, Circuit Judge, and McNICHOLS and TAYLOR, District Judges, sitting as a Special ThreeJudge District Court. (A