Federal Court Digests: June 4, 2007

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), Jun 4, 2007

Mr. Smith argued that the district court improperly dismissed the complaint as to him for lack of standing. Standing has three elements: "First, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized; and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of - the injury has to be fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... the result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court. Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).

Mr. Smith argued that his First Amendment rights as a candidate for public office were chilled by Judge Frye's allegedly retaliatory firing of Mr. Smith's mother, relying upon Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474 (4th Cir. 2005). In Constantine, the plaintiff's First Amendment rights were chilled by direct retaliatory action against her, whereas in the instant case, the alleged retaliatory action was taken not against Mr. Smith at all, but rather against a third party, his mother. Under the circumstances, an adverse employment action against Ms. Smith did not create a concrete and particularized violation of any legally protected right of Mr. Smith's. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.

Additionally, Mr. Smith averred that he suffered the injuries of indignity, embarrassment, and emotional distress because he felt responsible for his mother's discharge. The district court applied the venerable common-law tort principle that "one cannot collect for emotional damage or humiliation occasioned by harm done to a family member absent fairly particular circumstances." Smith v. Frye, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39909, at *12. The district court's reference to tort-law principles was entirely appropriate in this instance. See Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 34 (1983). Such emotional distress is insufficient as an Article III injury in fact.

Because Ms. Smith failed to state a claim that Judge Frye violated her First Amendment rights and Mr. Smith lacked standing to assert claims against Judge Frye based on his mother's termination, the district court's dismissal of the Smiths' complaint was affirmed.

CONCURRENCE: According to the concurrence, in her complaint Ms. Smith alleged facts sufficient to state a claim against Judge Frye. But because applicability of the First Amendment to facts like those alleged was not clearly established at the time of the challenged discharge, qualified immunity protected Judge Frye from liability.

Copyrights and Trademarks

Standard of review under the APA

BOTTOM LINE: Register of Copyrights did not err in refusing to issue a copyright registration because the work lacked the authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.

CASE: Darden v. Peters, No. 06-1177 (decided May 24, 2007) (Judges Widener, TRAXLER & Duncan).