Also known as: Article III standing · constitutional standing
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional doctrine limiting federal court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies by requiring plaintiffs to show a concrete and particularized injury in fact that is traceable to the defendant's conduct and redressable by judicial relief.
Arthur Abrams, a taxpayer, sued the Treasury Department claiming that a new regulation violated federal law by favoring certain industries. He alleged only that the government had failed to follow statutory procedures and that every citizen shared an interest in lawful administration. The court dismissed the suit because the asserted harm was a generalized grievance shared equally by the public at large.
Alexis Archer downloaded an app that displayed her customer number in full, contrary to a federal privacy statute. She sued for statutory damages but alleged no account access, identity theft, or financial loss. The court dismissed the complaint because the bare statutory violation alone did not produce a concrete injury in fact.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Adam Anderson, a parent, sued the IRS alleging that tax exemptions for segregated private schools injured him by supporting unlawful discrimination. He identified no personal financial or educational harm distinct from other citizens. The court held that the claim presented only an abstract grievance insufficient for standing.
Avalon Pharmaceuticals joined a proposed class settlement covering asbestos claims even though it faced no pending suits and alleged no present harm. The court refused certification because the class members had not shown concrete, particularized injuries traceable to the defendant.
Anika Anand, a taxpayer, challenged federal grants to religious schools as violating the Establishment Clause. She alleged only that her tax dollars were being spent unlawfully without claiming any personal exclusion or other concrete injury. The court recognized standing because the claim rested on a specific constitutional limitation on taxing and spending power.
Artemis Logistics discharged pollutants into a river used by members of Friends of the River for recreation. The group sued seeking injunctive relief and submitted affidavits showing members' concrete plans to visit the river in the near future. The court found standing because the members faced imminent, particularized injury redressable by the requested relief.
No. Article III requires an injury in fact that is both particularized and concrete. A plaintiff cannot rely solely on the fact that a statute was violated. There must be some actual or realistically threatened harm.
No. Congress cannot eliminate the Article III case-or-controversy requirement. Statutory authorization alone does not dispense with the need for a concrete injury in fact, causation, and redressability.
Generalized grievances shared in substantially equal measure by all citizens, such as an interest in having the government follow the law, do not satisfy Article III standing.
…anywhere outside the context of environmental claims. As I understand it, environmental plaintiffs are under no special constitutional standing disabilities. Like other plaintiffs, they need show only that the action they challenge has injured them, without necessarily showing they happened to be physically near the location of the…