“We review the trial court's construction of the Act de novo, but at the same time we give deference to the interpretation adopted by the agency that administers the Act.” District of Columbia v. Gallagher, 734 A.2d 1087, 1090 (D.C.1999); see also Mallof v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 1 A.3d 383, 392 n. 39 (D.C.2010) (noting that we give “substantial deference” to agency interpretations of the regulations they have promulgated). Not all agency determinations, however, are deserving of a heightened level of deference.
The D.C. Court of Appeals has interpreted this language to require the same elements of standing that federal courts apply under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. See Mallof v. D.C. Bd. of Elections and Ethics, 1 A.3d 383, 394–95, 394 n.51 (D.C. 2010) ; see also Friends of Tilden Park, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 806 A.2d 1201, 1206 (D.C. 2002) ("Congress did not establish this court under Article III of the Constitution, but we nonetheless apply in every case the constitutional requirement of a case or controversy and the prudential prerequisites of standing." (quoting Speyer v. Barry, 588 A.2d 1147, 1160 (D.C. 1991) ) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
While "[l]ack of standing always deprives a court of the power to adjudicate a claim, ... the doctrine of mootness is subject to recognized exceptions that allow a court to proceed to judgment." Mallof v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 1 A.3d 383, 395 n.54 (D.C. 2010) ; see also Grayson v. AT & T Corp., 15 A.3d 219, 235 n.38 (D.C. 2011). However, the exceptions this court has recognized, such as "for disputes capable of repetition yet evading review," Mallof, 1 A.3d at 395, are not pertinent here.
Appellants maintain that standing under the DCAPA is different from Article III standing because in addition to showing injury-in-fact, the interest sought to be protected must be arguably within the zone of interests protected by the DCAPA, and no clear legislative intent must withhold judicial review. HRH acknowledges that both require an injury-in-fact, which is the aspect relevant here, for aggrievement under the DCAPA requires the same concrete and particularized injury as Article III standing. D.C. Code § 2–510(a) ; see Mallof v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics , 1 A.3d 383, 394 (D.C. 2010) ; York Apartments Tenants Ass’n v. D.C. Zoning Comm’n , 856 A.2d 1079, 1085 (D.C. 2004) ; Dist. Intown Props., Ltd. v. D.C. Dep’t of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs , 680 A.2d 1373, 1377 (D.C. 1996). HRH objects that the D.C. Court of Appeals order dismissing its petition did not set forth the grounds for its holding but HRH ignores the order to show cause. Second, the issue was "actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction," Yamaha , 961 F.2d at 254, because the D.C. Court of Appeals dismissed HRH’s petition for lack of standing in view of its non-aggrievement, and that court has jurisdiction over petitions regarding D.C. agency orders, see D.C. Code § 2–510(a).
It is true that DCAPA standing incorporates the prudential standing doctrines the Supreme Court has developed for cases under the federal Administrative Procedure Act, so that DCAPA standing requires more than does Article III standing. See Mallof v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 1 A.3d 383, 394 & n.51 (D.C. 2010) ; Dupont Circle Citizens Ass'n v. Barry, 455 A.2d 417, 421 (D.C. 1983). However, the issue that the D.C. Court of Appeals decided, and the issue that was therefore precluded, was whether HRH had suffered an injury-in-fact—a requirement that is identical under both standing doctrines.
See, e.g., id. at 1346-56 (finding no "injury in fact" or "causation" where voters' ability to influence outcome of referendum was impaired by government contracts that distorted political landscape); Colo. Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. Romer, 963 F.2d 1394, 1398-1403 (10th Cir. 1992) (rejecting taxpayer standing in suit alleging governor illegally used state funds to defeat a popular referendum that plaintiff-taxpayers supported); Shakman v. Dunne, 829 F.2d 1387, 1398 (7th Cir. 1987) ("A plaintiff cannot assert injury to . . . his influence as a voter simply on the basis of the advantage—real or imagined—of incumbency." (footnote and citations omitted)); Winspinger v. Watson, 628 F.2d 133, 137-39 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (finding that voters alleging incumbent illegally used public authority and funds to influence election lacked standing); Mallof v. D.C. Bd. of Elections and Ethics, 1 A.3d 383 (D.C. 2010) (finding that voters did not suffer "injury in fact" when candidate allegedly used public resources in re-election campaign). Here, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants used state resources to influence the outcome of the referendum, but have not shown how this allegedly illegal interference in the election process rises above the level of a generalized grievance shared with all other voters.
Id. at 148–49. In Mallof v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics , 1 A.3d 383 (D.C. 2010), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals considered a case where plaintiffs challenged a determination of the Office of Campaign Finance that a candidate had not violated local campaign finance law by using government resources in a political campaign. Id. at 385.
Even construing Article III constitutional law, we have observed that, while “[l]ack of standing always deprives a court of the power to adjudicate a claim, ... the doctrine of mootness is subject to recognized exceptions that allow a court to proceed to judgment.” Mallof v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 1 A.3d 383, 395 n. 54 (D.C.2010). 2 We choose likewise to reach the merits of this appeal despite Rotunda's settlement of his individual claim.
Even construing Article III constitutional law, we have observed that, while “[l]ack of standing always deprives a court of the power to adjudicate a claim, ... the doctrine of mootness is subject to recognized exceptions that allow a court to proceed to judgment.” Mallof v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 1 A.3d 383, 395 n. 54 (D.C.2010). We choose likewise to reach the merits of this appeal despite Rotunda's settlement of his individual claim.
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).See United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 397, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980) (defining mootness as “the doctrine of standing set in a time frame,” in that “[t]he requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).”); Mallof v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 1 A.3d 383, 395 n. 54 (D.C.2010) ( “Standing is determined at the time the complaint is filed, while mootness ensures that the requisite personal stake necessary at the outset of litigation continues through its course.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Public charter schools in the District of Columbia are governed by the provisions of the School Reform Act (the “SRA”) codified at D.C.Code § 38–1802.