Carney v. Adams
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a Delaware lawyer lacked the legal standing to challenge his state's requirement that judges belong to one of the two major political parties, because he could not show a real, concrete intention to actually apply for a judgeship in the near future.
The decision threw out the lawsuit without deciding whether Delaware's partisan-balance rules for its courts are constitutional — leaving that question open for a future challenger with stronger evidence of a genuine plan to seek a judgeship.
How it got here: A federal district court found Adams had standing and struck down Delaware's rules; the Third Circuit affirmed standing only for the major-party requirement and found it unconstitutional; Delaware's governor petitioned the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the standing question first.
The Case in Depth
What happened
James Adams, a Delaware lawyer who spent most of his career with the state's Department of Justice, had been a registered Democrat his whole life but never applied for any of the 14 judicial vacancies he was eligible for between 2012 and 2016. In early 2017 he read a law review article arguing that Delaware's constitutional requirement that judges belong to one of the two major political parties was unconstitutional. He called the article's author, switched his registration to independent, and filed this federal lawsuit eight days later, claiming the rules violated his First Amendment right to associate — or not associate — with a political party.
The question before the Court
Did a Delaware lawyer who read a law review article, switched his party registration to independent, and then filed suit eight days later have the legal standing to challenge his state's requirement that judges belong to a major political party?
The Court's answer
No — Adams did not have the legal right to bring this lawsuit. To challenge a rule that bars someone from a position, a person must show they were "able and ready" to actually apply for that position in the near future, not just that they have a general wish to do so someday. Adams offered only two bare statements — "I would apply for any judicial position I thought I was qualified for" — with nothing else to back them up.
The full record told a different story: Adams had skipped 14 judicial vacancies he was eligible for over the prior four years, retired from practicing law, and switched his party registration just eight days before filing this suit — right after reading an article arguing the rules were unconstitutional. The Court found this pattern showed a desire to vindicate a legal argument, not a concrete plan to become a judge, and that allowing such thin evidence to count as a personal injury would open the door to the kind of advisory opinions federal courts are not allowed to issue.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Anyone who wants to challenge a law that bars them from a job or benefit in federal court must show more than a general wish to hold that position — they need concrete evidence they were actively preparing to apply. For Delaware, its contested judicial-appointment rules remain in effect, and political independents remain ineligible for seats on three of its five major courts until a qualifying plaintiff brings a new challenge.
What changes now
The case is dismissed for lack of standing, and the Third Circuit's ruling on the constitutional merits is wiped out. Delaware's political-balance requirements for its courts remain in effect. A future plaintiff who can show a more concrete, near-term intention to apply for a judgeship — backed by actual preparations or applications — could potentially bring a new challenge. Justice Sotomayor's concurrence signals that such a future case may require distinct constitutional analysis for the "major party" and "bare majority" rules, and may involve certification of the severability question to Delaware's own Supreme Court.
What this does not decide
The Court explicitly does not decide whether Delaware's requirement that judges belong to a major political party violates the First Amendment. It also reserves whether a bare statement of intent, in different circumstances, could ever alone be enough to establish standing — the ruling is limited to the particular thin record Adams provided.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Sotomayor
Justice Sotomayor agreed Adams lacked standing but wrote separately to flag issues for the next case. She argued that Delaware's 'major party' requirement — which bars independents entirely from three courts — is meaningfully different from the 'bare majority' requirement and may deserve stricter constitutional scrutiny. She also suggested that if a future court reaches the severability question (whether one rule can survive if the other falls), it should consider certifying that sensitive question of state constitutional law to Delaware's own Supreme Court rather than resolving it independently.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court started from the constitutional requirement that federal courts may only decide real disputes between parties with something concrete at stake — not abstract legal questions. This rule is enforced through the doctrine of 'standing,' which requires a plaintiff to show a personal, concrete, and imminent injury, not just a generalized grievance that all citizens share.
- For someone claiming to be excluded from a job or benefit, the key question is whether they were 'able and ready' to apply — meaning they had a genuine, specific intent to seek the position in the reasonably foreseeable future, not merely a someday wish. The Court looked at the full summary-judgment record to see if Adams cleared this bar.
- Adams offered only two general statements from a deposition and interrogatory answers: that he 'would apply for any judicial position' he thought he was qualified for. The Court treated these as the starting point, but found they had to be evaluated against everything else in the record.
- The surrounding facts undercut Adams's claimed intent: he had passed up 14 judicial vacancies for which he was eligible as a Democrat between 2012 and 2016; he retired from law practice in late 2015; he switched his bar membership to inactive status; he read a law review article in early 2017 arguing Delaware's rules were unconstitutional; he changed his party affiliation to independent; and he filed suit eight days later — with no knowledge of what positions might open up and no other preparations suggesting imminent job-seeking.
- The Court applied its earlier ruling in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife — which held that vague 'some day' intentions to revisit a place do not establish imminent injury — and contrasted Adams's thin record with cases like Adarand Constructors and Gratz v. Bollinger, where plaintiffs showed prior applications, regular opportunities, and concrete plans. Adams had none of those markers.
- Because Adams's words of general intent, read against the full record, reflected a desire to challenge a law rather than a genuine near-term plan to seek a judgeship, he had not shown the personal, concrete, and imminent injury that standing doctrine requires. Accepting such thin evidence would allow federal courts to issue the kind of advisory opinions on abstract legal disputes that the Constitution forbids.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (504 U. S. 555)
Reaffirmed that vague 'some day' intentions to experience a future harm do not establish the imminent injury standing requires.