Keith et al. v. Commonwealth, Dept. of
Agriculture – May 13, 2015 – Commonwealth Court
Taxpayersheld to have had standing to
challenge the Department of Agricultures exemption of nursing mothers from the
statutory ban on metal strand flooring and from the statutory requirement of
unfettered access to exercise areas.
Taxpayers had standing under In re Application of Biester, 409 A.2d
848, 852 (Pa. 1979). Under Biester,
taxpayers, even ones not personally aggrieved, may challenge a governmental
action provided that they satisfy the following requirements: (1) the
governmental action would otherwise go unchallenged, (2) those directly and
immediately affected by the complained of expenditures are beneficially
affected and not inclined to challenge the action, (3) judicial relief is
appropriate, (4) redress through other channels is unavailable, and (5) no
other persons are better situated to assert the claim. Flora v. Luzerne
Cty., 103 A.3d 125, 132 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (emphasis added). The Department
asserts that Petitioners are unable to satisfy the second and fifth Biester factors.
The purpose underlying Biester’s relaxation
of the general rules regarding standing and their requirement of a substantial,
direct, and immediate interest in the matter, is to enable citizens to
challenge governmental action which would otherwise go unchallenged in the
courts. Faden v. Phila. Hous. Auth., 227 A.2d 619, 621-22 (Pa. 1967).
Taxpayer standing “allows the courts, within the framework of traditional
notions of ‘standing,’ to add to the controls over public officials inherent in
the elective process the judicial scrutiny of the statutory and constitutional
validity of their acts.” Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth,
888 A.2d 655, 661-662 (Pa. 2005) (quoting Biester, 409 A.2d at 851 n.5).
______________________
If the case is not recent, the link in this posting may not
work. In that case, search for the case by name and date on Westlaw,
Lexis, Google Scholar, or the court website http://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/court-opinions/
