Scribd
Upload
9 views2 pages

Nelson v. Collins Issue: Injury in Fact

Roberta Nelson and Maurice Williams are unlikely to establish Article III standing to challenge Connecticut's contraception ban due to the lack of enforcement for over thirty years. Their claimed injury is considered too speculative, as there is no imminent risk of prosecution. The case may be dismissed for lack of ripeness and standing, similar to the precedent set in Poe v. Ullman.

Uploaded by

Phạm Giang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
9 views2 pages

Nelson v. Collins Issue: Injury in Fact

Roberta Nelson and Maurice Williams are unlikely to establish Article III standing to challenge Connecticut's contraception ban due to the lack of enforcement for over thirty years. Their claimed injury is considered too speculative, as there is no imminent risk of prosecution. The case may be dismissed for lack of ripeness and standing, similar to the precedent set in Poe v. Ullman.

Uploaded by

Phạm Giang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Nelson v.

Collins
Issue
Can Roberta Nelson and Maurice Williams establish Article III standing to contest the
constitutionality of Connecticut’s contraception ban and request a court order
preventing its enforcement?

Rule
To establish Article III standing, plaintiffs must show:
1. Injury in Fact – A concrete and particularized injury that is actual or
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.
2. Causation – A causal connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of.
3. Redressability – A likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
court decision.
In addition, courts generally do not hear cases that are not "ripe" (too early) or are
"moot" (no longer a live controversy), and they disfavor hearing abstract or
hypothetical disputes, especially where a statute is not actively enforced.

Application
1. Injury in Fact:
Nelson and Williams assert a desire to use contraceptives for family planning,
which the statute prohibits. However, no enforcement has occurred in over
thirty years, and contraceptives are openly available in pharmacies. This
weakens the claim that the couple faces an “imminent” risk of prosecution.
Without credible threat of enforcement, the injury may be considered too
speculative to qualify under Article III.
2. Causation:
If there were a credible threat of enforcement, the injury (chilling effect on the
exercise of reproductive choices) would be traceable to the statute and the
state's continued maintenance of the ban.
3. Redressability:
If the court declared the law unconstitutional and issued an injunction, it would
eliminate any threat of enforcement. Thus, redressability would be satisfied if
standing were otherwise present.
4. Additional Considerations:
In Poe v. Ullman (1961), which this problem closely mirrors, the Supreme
Court dismissed a similar case for lack of ripeness and standing due to non-
enforcement of the statute. The Court emphasized that mere existence of a
statute, without credible threat of enforcement, is not enough to meet the "case
or controversy" requirement.

Conclusion
It is unlikely that Nelson and Williams meet the requirements for Article III standing,
as Connecticut’s birth control law has gone unenforced for many years. Without a
genuine or immediate risk of prosecution, their claimed harm appears too uncertain,
rendering the dispute premature for court review.

You might also like