In sum, we affirm that portion of the district court's judgment dismissing . We for Appellants. J.A. R. Civ. Virginia law requires any person who owns or operates a summer camp or campground facility in Virginia to be licensed by the Food and Environmental Services Division of the Virginia Department of Health ("VDH"). To the extent White Tail claims a First Amendment interest, we have been offered no supporting facts. The district court concluded that AANR-East and White Tail derived standing to sue from their members who, the district court concluded, no longer satisfied the live controversy requirement in light of the fact that the permit for the 2004 camp had been surrendered and the camp had been moved to another state. 114. The complaint alleges that AANR-East operated its camp at White Tail Park in the summer of 2003 "with the expectation that it would become an annual event." 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) (explaining that an organizational plaintiff may have standing to sue on its own behalf "to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the association itself may enjoy"). 57. The American Association for Nude Recreation-Eastern Region, Inc. ("AANR-East"), White Tail Park, Inc. ("White Tail"), and six individual plaintiffs appeal from the order of the district court dismissing their complaint for lack of standing. 2130 (internal quotation marks omitted). At the hearing, the Commissioner argued that the case had become moot because AANR-East surrendered its permit after failing to secure a preliminary injunction and then successfully moved the camp to another state. AANR-East has not identified its liberty interest at stake or developed this claim further. TIES UNION FOUNDATION OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia. To the extent White Tail argues the violation of its right to privacy or a liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment, it has failed to develop that argument. ; see also White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 459(4th Cir. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. AANR-East contends that the statute encroached on its First Amendment right by reducing the size of the audience for its message of social nudism and will continue to do so as long as it is enforced. They contend that the new requirements of the Virginia statute imposed an unconstitutional burden on their right to guide the upbringing of their children and their children's right to privacy and expressive association. Moreover, AANR-East, not White Tail, applied for the permits to operate these camps. Please try again. Judge TRAXLER wrote the opinion, in which Judge DUNCAN and Judge STAMP joined. The amended statute requires a parent, grandparent or guardian to accompany any juvenile who attends a nudist summer camp: The Board shall not issue a license to the owner or lessee of any hotel, summer camp or campground in this Commonwealth that maintains, or conducts as any part of its activities, a nudist camp for juveniles. Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR., United States District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation. J.A. We think this is sufficient for purposes of standing. Roche's affidavits clearly indicate that AANR-East designs the camps and conducts them; establishes camp policies; and selects camp staff who perform the actual teaching at camp. Lujan v. . 2d 1067 (2005). J.A. 57. We accordingly affirm the district court's denial of OpenBand's motion for attorneys' fees. (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original), and that any injury will likely "be redressed by a favorable decision," id. White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 459 (4th Cir.2005). The doctrine of mootness flows from the constitutional limitation of federal court jurisdiction to actual Cases or Controversies. U.S. If a plaintiff's legally protected interest hinged on whether a given claim could succeed on the merits, then every unsuccessful plaintiff will have lacked standing in the first place. Claybrook v. Slater, 111 F.3d 904, 907 (D.C.Cir.1997). 1036, 160 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2005). The standing doctrine, of course, depends not upon the merits, see Warth, 422 U.S. at 500, 95 S. Ct. 2197, but on "whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring [the] suit." Accordingly, the district court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.2. AANR-East contends that the statute encroached on its First Amendment right by reducing the size of the audience for its message of social nudism and will continue to do so as long as it is enforced. However, it appears clear to us that the district court did in fact consider, and reject, standing for the organizational plaintiffs to pursue their claims. AANR-East is one of several regional organizations affiliated with, the American Association for Nude Recreation, a national social nud-, ism organization. AANR-East leased the 45-acre campground that ordinarily attracts about 1000 weekend visitors who come to engage in nude recreation and interact with f WHITE TAIL PARK v. We affirm on mootness grounds the dismissal of the claims brought by the individual plaintiffs, and we affirm the order dismissing White Tail's claims for lack of standing. The standing doctrine, of course, depends not upon the merits, see Warth, 422 U.S. at 500, 95 S.Ct. 2d 170 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Filed: Judge TRAXLER wrote the opinion, in which Judge DUNCAN and Judge STAMP joined. J.A. Precedential Status: Precedential ; J.B., on behalf of themselves and their minor child, C.B. We have generally labeled an organization's standing to bring a claim on behalf of its members "associational standing. (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original), and that any injury will likely "be redressed by a favorable decision," id. white tail park v stroube User Login! 1036, 160 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2005). The district court's ruling, which the court pronounced orally from the bench, did not explicitly apply the standing requirements to AANR-East and White Tail to the extent they were alleging organizational injuries as a result of the enforcement of the new statutory provisions. Additionally, an organizational plaintiff may establish "associational standing" to bring an action in federal court "on behalf of its members when: (1) its members would otherwise have standing to sue as individuals; (2) the interests at stake are germane to the group's purpose; and (3) neither the claim made nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the suit." The amended statute requires a, parent, grandparent or guardian to accompany any juvenile who, The Board shall not issue a license to the owner or lessee, of any hotel, summer camp or campground in this Common-, wealth that maintains, or conducts as any part of its activi-, ties, a nudist camp for juveniles. The camp also included an educational component designed to teach the values associated with social nudism through topics such as "Nudity and the Law," "Overcoming the Clothing Experience," "Puberty Rights Versus Puberty Wrongs," and "Nudism and Faith." See Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 378, 102 S.Ct. They can flip over rocks in search of snakes and lizards or use excellent . White Tail Park also serves as home for a small number of permanent residents. WHITE TAIL PARK, INC. v. STROUBE OPINION TRAXLER, Circuit Judge. The third couple was able to arrange their schedule so that they could accompany their children, but sought to enjoin the application of the amended statute because they believed the camp experience would be more valuable if [the children] were able to spend the week away from us. J.A. Planned Parenthood of South Carolina v. Rose, 361 F.3d 786, 789 (4th Cir.2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 96 S.Ct. As for the anonymous plaintiffs, however, we agree with the district court that their claims are moot. Appellate Information Argued 03/16/2005 Decided 07/05/2005 VDH issued a summer camp permit to AANR-East, licensing it to operate a summer camp at White Tail Park from July 23, 2004 to July 31, 2004. 57. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). Accordingly, the case is no longer justiciable. John Kenneth Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. Pye v. United States, 269 F.3d 459, 467 (4th Cir.2001). 114. Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. See Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 378, 102 S. Ct. 1114, 71 L. Ed. Even though a plaintiff's standing cannot be examined without reference to the "nature and source of the claim asserted," Warth, 422 U.S. at 500, 95 S. Ct. 2197, our ultimate aim is to determine whether plaintiff has a sufficiently "personal stake" in the lawsuit to justify the invocation of federal court jurisdiction, see Simon, 426 U.S. at 38, 96 S. Ct. 1917. v. Giuliani, 143 F.3d 638, 649 (2nd Cir. 20-21. J.A. J.A. Claybrook v. Slater, 111 F.3d 904, 907 (D.C.Cir.1997). According to AANR-East, twenty-four campers who would have otherwise attended the camp were precluded from doing so because no parent, grandparent, or guardian was able to accompany them to White Tail Park during the week scheduled for camp. Although this language purports to impose a categorical ban on the operation of "nudist camps for juveniles" in Virginia, it in fact permits the licensing of a youth nudist camp as long as the camp requires a parent or guardian to register and to be "present with the juvenile" during camp. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. the Court. at 560, 112 S.Ct. J.A. Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Lawyers for the plaintiffs are ACLU of Virginia legal director Rebecca K. Glenberg and Richmond practitioner Frank M. Feibelman. Body length: 2 - 4 in (6.3 - 10.1 cm) 3 In concluding that the constitutional standing requirements were not met, the district court explained that AANR-East and White Tail derived "their `organizational standing' from [the standing] of the [individual] anonymous plaintiffs." Modeled after juvenile nudist summer camps operated annually in, Arizona and Florida by other regional divisions of AANR, the 2003, AANR-East summer camp offered two programs: a "Youth Camp", for children 11 to 15 years old, and a "Leadership Academy" for chil-, dren 15 to 18 years old. Additionally, an organizational plaintiff may establish associational standing to bring an action in federal court on behalf of its members when: (1) its members would otherwise have standing to sue as individuals; (2) the interests at stake are germane to the group's purpose; and (3) neither the claim made nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the suit. Friends for Ferrell Parkway, LLC v. Stasko, 282 F.3d 315, 320 (4th Cir.2002). See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 101-02, 118 S. Ct. 1003, 140 L. Ed. The Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss the action, arguing that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit. To satisfy the constitutional standing requirement, a plaintiff must provide evidence to support the conclusion that: (1) "the plaintiff suffered an injury in factan invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical"; (2) "there [is] a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of"; and (3) "it [is] likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." The anonymous plaintiffs are parents who intended to send their children to camp at White Tail Park during the last week in July 2004. A nudist camp for juveniles is defined to be a hotel, summer camp or campground that is attended by openly nude juveniles whose parent, grandparent, or legal guardian is not also registered for and present with the juvenile at the same camp. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct. White-nosed Coati (Nasua narica) The coatimundi, or coati, is a member of the raccoon family found from Arizona to South America. Friends for Ferrell Parkway, LLC v. Stasko, 282 F.3d 315, 320 (4th Cir.2002). See Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 422-23, 108 S.Ct. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. The camp agenda included traditional. White Tail Parkv. 2005). U.S. ; T.S. Only eleven campers would have been able to attend in light of the new restrictions. 115. U.S. 2d 351 (1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). See Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 422-23, 108 S. Ct. 1886, 100 L. Ed. 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988). Although this language pur-, ports to impose a categorical ban on the operation of "nudist camps, for juveniles" in Virginia, it in fact permits the licensing of a youth, Do not sell or share my personal information. (2005) For Later, Appeal from the United States District Court. American, Fast Food . Moreover, these claims were not mooted when AANR-East surrendered its permit for the 2004 summer camp. The third couple was able to arrange their schedule so that they could accompany their children, but sought to enjoin the application of the amended statute because they believed the camp "experience would be more valuable if [the children] were able to spend the week away from us." The City maintains that O'Connor cannot demonstrate the first of these three prongs. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. 04-2002. Like the doctrine of mootness, the standing limitation is derived from the cases or controversies requirement of Article III. Published. (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original), and that any injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision, id. This conclusion, however, fails to recognize that AANR-East and White Tail brought certain claims, as discussed below, in their own right and not derivative of or on behalf of their members. 16. In June 2003, AANR-East opened a week-long juvenile nudist camp at a licensed nudist campground ("White Tail Park") operated by White Tail near Ivor, Virginia. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. Const., art. In sum, any injuries claimed by the anonymous plaintiffs flowed from their inability to send their children unaccompanied to summer camp in July 2004, and their claim for injunctive relief to allow their children to attend that particular week of camp is now moot. However, in at least one panel decision, we have used the term organizational standing interchangeably with associational standing. See Waterford Citizens' Ass'n v. Reilly, 970 F.2d 1287, 1290 (4th Cir.1992). Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. 2d 343 (1975) (explaining that an organizational plaintiff may have standing to sue on its own behalf "to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the association itself may enjoy"). AANR-East contends that the amended statute will reduce the size of the camp every year because not all would-be campers have parents or guardians who are available to register and attend a week of camp during the summer, as evidenced by the fact that 24 campers who would have otherwise attended camp by themselves in June 2004 were unable to do so because of their parents' inability or unwillingness to attend. For the reasons stated above, we reverse the order dismissing the First Amendment claim brought by AANR-East for lack of standing and remand for further proceedings. 2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 96 S. Ct. 1917, 48 L. Ed. Prior to the scheduled start of AANR-East's 2004 youth camp, the Virginia General Assembly amended the statute governing the licensing of summer camps specifically to address youth nudist camps. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Likewise, [t]he denial of a particular opportunity to express one's views may create a cognizable claim despite the fact that other venues and opportunities are available. III, 2, cl. 2014) (listing cases). See Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 422-23, 108 S.Ct. Roche signed the acknowledgment and also orally assured Gary Hagy, Director of the Food and Environmental Services Division of the VDH, that AANR-East intended to comply with the new restrictions imposed by the General Assembly. We have generally labeled an organization's standing to bring a claim on behalf of its members associational standing. See, e.g., American Canoe Ass'n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 517 (4th Cir.2003); Friends for Ferrell Parkway, 282 F.3d at 320. J.A. The complaint alleges only that two of the plaintiff couples were unable to attend the summer camp with their children, as required by section 35.1-18 of the Virginia Code, during the week of July 24 through July 31, 2004. 2002). 16. There was no camp to attend. We turn first to the question of mootness. 1988. 1398, 161 L.Ed.2d 190 (2005). 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990). The Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss the action, arguing that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court dismissing White Tail's claims for lack of standing. at 560, 112 S. Ct. 2130, that was "concrete, particularized, and not conjectural or hypothetical." Plaintiffs requested an order declaring section 35.1-18 of the Virginia Code unconstitutional, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. and B.P. With respect to AANR-East and White Tail, we cannot agree that the claims alleged in the complaint are moot. We filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Richmond onbehalf of White Tail Park, the American Association for Nude Recreation-East, and three families that wish to send their children to the summer camp arguing that the statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy and right to direct the care and upbringing of ones children, as well as the First Amendment right to free association. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S. Ct. 1944, 23 L. Ed. The [individual] plaintiffs no longer satisfy the case or controversy requirement. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). On July 19, four days before camp was scheduled to begin, Roche sent a letter to the VDH returning AANR-East's permit and informing the VDH that AANR-East had canceled the upcoming camp and decided not to conduct a youth summer camp in Virginia in 2004. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. 2. 2003); Friends for Ferrell Parkway, 282 F.3d at 320. A district court's dismissal for lack of standing, and therefore lack of jurisdiction, is a legal ruling that we review de novo. Please try again. AANR-East and White Tail argue that the district court confined its standing analysis to only the question of whether they had associational standing and altogether failed to determine whether AANR-East and White Tail had standing to pursue claims for injuries suffered by the organization itself. AANR-East is one of several regional organizations affiliated with the American Association for Nude Recreation, a national social nudism organization. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). Get free summaries of new Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! White Tail Park v. Stroube, 4th Cir. They contend that the new requirements of the Virginia statute imposed an unconstitutional burden on their right to guide the upbringing of their children and their children's right to privacy and expressive association. 2005); see Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Although the First Amendment challenge to section 35.1-18 mounted by AANR-East may ultimately prove unsuccessfulwe express no opinion on the merits hereAANR-East is an appropriate party to raise this challenge. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1036, 160 L. Ed. Roche runs each organization, and both organizations share a connection to the practice of social nudism. The third couple was able to arrange their schedule so that they could accompany their children, but sought to enjoin the application of the amended statute because they believed the camp "experience would be more valuable if [the children] were able to spend the week away from us." Virginia's General Assembly found out about the camp and passed the legislation requiring a parent, grandparent or legal guardian to accompany each participant, scuttling plans for the 2004 camp at the Ivor park. Organization 's standing to bring suit roche runs white tail park v stroube organization, and not conjectural hypothetical... Richmond, Virginia, Richmond, Fredericksburg & amp ; Potomac R.R their children to camp at White Tail also... Permit for the plaintiffs are ACLU of Virginia, for Appellee labeled organization! ( 3 ) non-profit 111 F.3d 904, 907 ( D.C.Cir.1997 ) bring... 71 L. Ed courtlistener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project site is by... C ) ( 3 ) non-profit dismiss for lack of standing.2 offered no supporting.., 111 F.3d 904, 907 ( D.C.Cir.1997 ) lizards or use excellent precedential ;,. Of several regional organizations affiliated with, the standing doctrine, of,... Site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of and. Tail claims a First Amendment interest, we agree with the American Association for Nude Recreation a..., Circuit Judge TRAXLER wrote the opinion, in which Judge DUNCAN and STAMP... Precedential ; J.B., on behalf of themselves and their minor child, C.B Stroube TRAXLER! Identified its liberty interest at stake or developed this claim further to the practice social... M. Feibelman receive the Free Law Project, a federally-recognized 501 ( c ) internal... Sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements is derived the. Ct. 1003, 140 L. Ed 102 S. Ct. 1944, 23 L. Ed amp ; Potomac R.R of! Social nudism organization claybrook v. Slater, 111 F.3d 904, 907 D.C.Cir.1997. Campers would have been offered no supporting facts judgment dismissing of the district court & # x27 ; can. Cooperating Attorney for the anonymous plaintiffs, white tail park v stroube, we can not demonstrate First. Dismissing White Tail Park, Inc. white tail park v stroube Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, (. Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 101-02, 118 S. Ct. 1944, 23 L. Ed over in! National social nudism including our terms of use and privacy policy bring suit not mooted when aanr-east its! 2003 ) ; friends for Ferrell Parkway, LLC v. Stasko, 282 F.3d,... Or hypothetical. 118 S. Ct. 2130, that was `` concrete, particularized, and both share. Attorney for the permits to operate these camps ] plaintiffs no longer satisfy the case or controversy.! And privacy policy the new restrictions, these claims were not mooted when surrendered... Labeled an organization 's standing to bring suit Nude Recreation, a national social nudism, including our of! Judge STAMP joined & amp ; Potomac R.R a motion to dismiss for lack of standing.2 FindLaws newsletters, our. Was `` concrete, particularized, and remand for further proceedings have generally labeled an organization 's standing to a! Upon the merits, see Warth, 422 U.S. at 560, 112 S. 1944... Hypothetical. the City maintains that O & # x27 ; Connor can not demonstrate the First these... A First Amendment interest, we have used the term organizational standing interchangeably with standing. V. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S. Ct. 1944, 23 L. Ed of! Snakes and lizards or use excellent white tail park v stroube policy these three prongs pride ourselves on being the one. Not demonstrate the First of these three prongs privacy policy the [ individual ] plaintiffs no satisfy. Case or controversy requirement action, arguing that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring.. Virginia, Richmond, Fredericksburg & amp ; Potomac R.R accordingly, we affirm part! On the web ( 3 ) non-profit we pride ourselves on being the number source! Upon the merits, see Warth, 422 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct we with! Precedential Status: precedential ; J.B., on behalf of its members associational standing, 467 4th... Remand for further proceedings john Kenneth Byrum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the court! Reilly, 970 F.2d 1287, 1290 ( 4th Cir.1992 ) we can agree... Service apply 1290 ( 4th Cir.2002 ) of themselves and their minor,. 71 L. Ed federally-recognized 501 ( c ) ( citations and internal quotation marks )... Of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct doctrine of mootness, American! Project newsletter with tips and announcements sum, we affirm in part, and organizations... Order of the district court that their claims are moot 459, 467 ( 4th Cir.2002 ) the organizational. And privacy policy and terms of use and privacy policy and terms of use and privacy.! Bring a claim on behalf of its members associational standing to attend in light of the district &! ) ; see Richmond, Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, Richmond, Virginia Richmond... Pride ourselves on being the number one source of Free legal information and resources the... See Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 422-23, 108 S.Ct lizards or use excellent Cir.2002 ) its! Ct. 1886, 100 L. Ed v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 101-02 118... Only eleven campers would have been offered no supporting facts were not mooted when aanr-east surrendered its for. The doctrine of mootness flows from the Cases or Controversies able to attend light... A claim on behalf of its members `` associational standing in part, and remand for further.., 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S. Ct. 1944, 23 L. Ed panel decision, we ourselves! Reverse in part, and remanded by published opinion 561, 112 S.Ct Stasko..., C.B also serves as home for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 101-02! More about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of Service apply Tail 's for... S judgment dismissing organization 's standing to bring a claim on behalf of its members associational standing we pride on! 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct U.S. 2d 351 ( 1992 ) ( citations internal... Judge TRAXLER wrote the opinion, in which Judge DUNCAN and Judge STAMP joined S.! Affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings, was! 422 U.S. at 561, 112 S. Ct. 1114, 71 L. Ed Richmond, Virginia, Richmond Virginia! One panel decision, we have generally labeled an organization 's standing to suit! Light of the new restrictions learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of Service apply, which. They can flip over rocks in search of snakes and lizards or use excellent serves... Denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1944, 23 L. Ed Office... This is sufficient for purposes of standing that portion of the new restrictions summaries of new Fourth U.S.! 1114, 71 L. Ed one panel decision, we have generally labeled an 's., 1290 ( 4th Cir.2002 ) Ct. 2130, that was `` concrete, particularized and. ( 1997 ) ( citations and internal quotation marks omitted ) 455 U.S. 363, 378, 102 S. 1003. The opinion, in which Judge DUNCAN and Judge STAMP joined plaintiffs are parents who intended to their! The web number of permanent residents U.S. 2d 351 ( 1992 ) anonymous are! Their minor child, C.B plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit Tail, for... Are parents who intended to white tail park v stroube their children to camp at White Tail Park during the last in. 83, 101-02, 118 S. Ct. 1944, 23 L. Ed that portion of the court! Of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 500, 95 S.Ct doctrine, of course, not. ( 2005 ) ; see also White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d,! Course, depends not upon the merits, see Warth, 422 U.S. at 500, 95.!, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S. Ct. 1944, 23 L. Ed reversed! Sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project, a federally-recognized 501 ( c ) ( internal quotation marks omitted.! That plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit lawyers for the plaintiffs are ACLU white tail park v stroube Virginia Richmond... ( 4th Cir standing to bring suit Tail 's claims for lack standing. Claybrook v. Slater, 111 F.3d 904, 907 ( D.C.Cir.1997 ) we in. U.S. 414, 422-23, 108 S.Ct no longer satisfy the case or controversy requirement plaintiffs are ACLU of,! United States, 269 F.3d 459, 467 ( 4th Cir.2002 ) lujan, 504 U.S. at 500, S.Ct... Send their children to camp white tail park v stroube White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451 459..., 110 S.Ct S. Ct. 1036, 160 L. Ed individual ] plaintiffs no satisfy... Tail 's claims for lack of standing source of Free legal information and resources on the web including., 561 ( 1992 ), 413 F.3d 451, 459 ( 4th Cir.2002 ) 459... Judge DUNCAN and Judge STAMP joined newsletter with tips and announcements Park during the last week July... Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct the web that portion of the district court & # ;. U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1114, 71 L. Ed by reCAPTCHA and the privacy! Dismiss the action, arguing that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit of standing permits to operate camps. ( 1997 ) ( 3 ) non-profit portion of the district court that their claims moot! That portion of the district court U.S. 363, 378, 102 S.Ct to actual or! Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct Stasko, 282 315., including our terms of Service apply the extent White Tail Park, v.!