Constitution Association, Inc. v. Kamala Harris
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Todd W. Robinson (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Appeal from
- Constitution Association, Inc. v. Harris (2021-09-28) — the district court's order on this docket in the record
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION, INC., by No. 21-56287 its founders; GEORGE F.X. ROMBACH, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-02379-TWR- Plaintiffs-Appellants, BLM and MEMORANDUM* B. GREEN; et al., Plaintiffs, v. KAMALA D. HARRIS, Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Todd W. Robinson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2023** Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
George F.X. Rombach and Constitution Association, Inc. appeal from the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). district court’s judgment dismissing their action challenging Kamala Harris’s eligibility to serve as Vice President. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co.
v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action because plaintiffs lacked standing. See Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774, 782 (9th Cir. 2011)
(dismissing a voter’s claim that President Obama was ineligible for the office because the plaintiff asserted nothing “more than a generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Am. Diabetes Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of the Army, 938 F.3d 1147, 1154-55 (9th Cir. 2019) (setting forth the requirements to establish organizational standing).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-56287