The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cited a book written by Professor Donald Doernberg and C. Keith Wingate. When reviewing an issue of standing under Article III of the United States Constitution, the opinion cites a passage from “Federal Courts, Federalism and Separation of Powers: Cases and Materials” to highlight the difference between “traceability” and “redressability.”
Association of Public Agency Customers v. Bonneville Power Administration looks at whether APAC, an organization whose members were not direct customers of BPA, had standing to seek redress from an unfair settlement agreement. The Court cited Professor Dorenberg’s book while pointing out a flaw in APAC’s argument stating APAC failed to assert that a favorable decision in this case would improve their member’s chances of achieving redress for which BPA is accountable because they failed to establish causation and redresability.
The Court stated, “APAC fails to establish causation and redressability because of a fatal flaw common to both queries—the COUs independent decisions have a significant effect on APAC’s members’ alleged harm and prevent this Court from redressing that alleged harm.”
The full opinion can be read here. Doernberg and Wingate’s book is cited on page 73.