Bullwinkel v. U.S. Dep't of Energy

2 Citing cases

  1. Bullwinkel v. U.S. Dep't of Energy

    No. 1:11-cv-01082-JDB-egb (W.D. Tenn. Sep. 4, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Furthermore, as the Court previously stated in this case, "one cannot base standing on a generalized interest that the law be properly executed." Bullwinkel v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, No. 11-1082, 2013 WL 392466 at *8-9 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 31, 2013); see, e.g., Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., 551 U.S. 587, 599-600, 127 S. Ct. 2553, 168 L. Ed. 2d 424 (2007) (taxpayers may not sue to ensure public funds are spent in a constitutional manner); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 556-57, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 351 (1992) (holding that the public interest in an "agenc[y]'s observance of a particular, statutorily prescribed procedure" does not create an "individual right vindicable in the courts") (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, insofar as any claims by Plaintiff in Counts 3, 8, and 9 rely on Title VI for subject matter jurisdiction, either directly or indirectly, they are hereby dismissed.

  2. Reed v. City of Gallatin

    NO. 3-12-0659 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 14, 2013)

    Defendant next argues that Plaintiffs cannot bring a disparate impact claim under Title VI. The above-cited provision of Title VI prohibits only intentional discrimination. Bullwinkel v. United States Dept. of Energy, 2013 WL 392466 at * 10 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 31, 2013); Alexander v. Sandoval, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 1516 (2001). No party may be sued under Title VI on a disparate impact theory.