Carney v. Adams
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Carney v. Adams and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Carney v. Adams.
In Carney v. Adams, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of standing in a case where a Delaware lawyer challenged the state's judicial appointment requirements. The Court found that the respondent, Adams, did not demonstrate a 'personal,' 'concrete,' and 'imminent' injury necessary for Article III standing. Consequently, the Court vacated and remanded the lower court's decision.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Carney v. Adams.
The Court held that Adams lacked standing because he failed to show he was 'able and ready' to apply for a judicial vacancy in the imminent future.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Carney v. Adams. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Standing is relevant to Carney v. Adams
The Court's decision focused on whether Adams had the necessary standing to bring the case, specifically whether he suffered a 'personal,' 'concrete,' and 'imminent' injury.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: Because Adams has not shown that he was 'able and ready' to apply for a judicial vacancy in the imminent future, he has failed to show a 'personal,' 'concrete,' and 'imminent' injury necessary for Article III standing.
-
Why Free Speech is relevant to Carney v. Adams
The case involved a claim that Delaware's requirements violated the First Amendment right to freedom of association, which is a component of free speech rights.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Respondent James R. Adams, a Delaware lawyer and political independent, sued...claiming that Delaware's 'bare majority' and 'major party' requirements violate his First Amendment right to freedom of association.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Carney v. Adams that support the summary and concepts above.
Adams has not shown that he was 'able and ready' to apply for a judicial vacancy in the imminent future.
A grievance that amounts to nothing more than an abstract and generalized harm does not count as an 'injury in fact.'
Adams' few words of general intent were insufficient to show an 'injury in fact.'
