Pittsburgh Man Does Not Have Standing to Sue Steelers

The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Richardson, 418 US 166 (1974) that being a taxpayer is not enough to bring a lawsuit challenging a government action. Although the taxpayer in that case was arguably injured by having a few cents of his tax money spent on a government program he felt was illegal, the Court held that there was not enough of a "concrete injury" to bring a suit. As one Justice wrote, such complaints are better left to the political process.

Now, a Pittsburgh man has been introduced to this legal standard. Robert C. Warnock had his lawsuit against the Steelers and the NFL dismissed last week because his status as a taxpayer was not deemed sufficient to bring the complaint. Warnock was attempting to bring an antitrust action, claiming that the local governments were forced into an unfair lease that caused them to pay more for the stadium than the benefit that would be received. Warnock claimed that an "unlawful trust" existed between the NFL, the Steelers and other teams in the league that restricted trade and prevented competition.

In dismissing the suit, the judge likened the man to "a spectator in the stands who is unable to challenge a disputed call by the referee because he does not hold the head coach's red challenge flag." As a taxpayer, the man would need one of the local governments to join the action for there to be a justiciable case or controversy. Neither the county or the city elected to do so.

The lawyer for Warnock said that he may appeal the result, based on a ruling in another federal case, where a fan in Cincinnati was granted standing to bring a similar claim. You can read more on the lawsuits in this earlier post.

Posted in: