A city resident challenged the state law creating the City of Mulberry in Gwinnett County. Holding that the resident lacked standing to challenge the state law — namely, a particularized injury — the Court of Appeals dismissed the challenge. Since the City was created by State action rather than local law, the resident needed to show a particularized injury similar to the federal Article III injury-in-fact requirement.
Hughes v. Gwinnett Cnty., A25A0484, 2025 WL 1702263 (Ga. Ct. App. June 18, 2025)
In the instant case, Hughes challenges the constitutionality of state action in passing SB 333. But in raising such a challenge to the constitutionality of that state legislative action, Hughes has failed to show that he has suffered an individualized injury. Rather, he claims that since he is a citizen stakeholder in Gwinnett County, like the plaintiffs in Cobb County, he has standing without the need for an individualized injury. But the plaintiffs in Cobb County, unlike Hughes, did not challenge the constitutionality of state legislative action, and instead challenged the constitutionality of local government action — an amendment passed by their county board of commissioners. Cobb County, supra at 89, 901 S.E.2d 512. “[A]s discussed above, the reason for requiring a particularized injury for state actions does not carry over to local governments.” Id. at 93 (1), 901 S.E.2d 512. So the standing of the Cobb County plaintiffs to challenge county legislative action was “firmly established” as “community stakeholders in that [county] government.”
. . .
We are not persuaded by Hughes’ argument that he has standing as a community stakeholder in Gwinnett County to contest the constitutionality of SB 333 because it is a local law with limited territorial impact, not a general statute.
