## Facts

- Congress enacted a statute increasing retirement benefits payable to Supreme Court Justices who retired at age 70 or older while Hugo L. Black was serving as a U.S. Senator.
- President Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated Senator Black to the Supreme Court, and the Senate confirmed him.
- Albert Levitt, a U.S. citizen and member of the Supreme Court bar, filed an original ex parte motion in the Supreme Court seeking leave to petition for an order requiring Justice Black to show cause why he should be permitted to serve.
- Levitt argued the appointment and confirmation were void under the Constitution’s Ineligibility Clause because the office’s emoluments had been increased during Black’s Senate term.
- Levitt also asserted there was no lawful vacancy for the appointment because the prior Justice’s retirement under the pension statute did not create a valid vacancy.
- Levitt alleged no personal injury beyond his status as a citizen and Supreme Court bar member.

## Issues

1. Whether a private individual alleging only generalized interests as a citizen and Supreme Court bar member has standing to invoke federal judicial power to challenge the validity of a Supreme Court Justice’s appointment and confirmation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court denied Levitt’s motion for leave to file the petition.
- The Court held the motion papers disclosed no interest other than that of a citizen and member of the Court’s bar, which was insufficient to confer standing.
- The Court did not reach the merits of Levitt’s constitutional objections.

## Legal Principles

- To invoke federal judicial power to test the validity of executive or legislative action, a private individual must show he has sustained, or is immediately in danger of sustaining, a direct injury from that action.
- A generalized interest common to all members of the public is insufficient to establish standing.
- When standing is absent, the Court will deny relief without addressing the underlying constitutional claims.

## Conclusion

The Court refused to entertain a challenge to a sitting Justice’s appointment because the petitioner alleged only a generalized grievance, reaffirming that Article III standing requires a direct, personal injury rather than an interest shared with the public at large.


Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 (1937)