Also known as: article iii standing · art. iii standing doctrine · constitutional standing · Article III standing
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional requirement limiting federal judicial power to actual cases or controversies. Plaintiffs must demonstrate an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Generalized grievances shared by the public at large or bare statutory violations without concrete harm do not suffice.
Citizens for Clean Government sued a federal ethics agency alleging it violated a statute by failing to issue public integrity regulations. The complaint asserted only that the failure undermined public trust in government without identifying any distinct harm to the organization or its members. The court dismissed the suit because the asserted interest amounted to a generalized grievance shared equally by all citizens.
Malcolm sued a background check company after it issued a report incorrectly listing him as subject to an unpaid judgment. He obtained every audition he sought and could identify no lost role or other harm from the error. The court held that the bare statutory violation did not establish the concrete injury required for standing.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Lopez and Chen, designated proponents of a state education savings account initiative, attempted to appeal after the state agency declined to challenge an injunction. They alleged only their support for the program and desire to see it enforced. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of a personal concrete injury distinct from the public at large.
Taxpayers sued to enjoin federal spending they claimed violated the Establishment Clause. They alleged only that public funds were being used inconsistently with the Constitution without showing any distinct personal harm. The court denied standing because their grievance was shared equally by all taxpayers and did not constitute a concrete injury.
The City of New York sued to invalidate the President's cancellation of a spending provision under the Line Item Veto Act. The city alleged direct economic harm from the loss of federal funds. The court found standing because the injury was particularized to the city and redressable by judicial relief.
A student newspaper sued the University of Virginia after it denied funding for religious viewpoints under a student activity fee program. The group alleged viewpoint discrimination that prevented publication of its message. The court held that the denial created a concrete injury traceable to the university's policy and redressable by an injunction.
A plaintiff must demonstrate a concrete and particularized harm that is actual or imminent rather than conjectural. A bare statutory violation without any real risk of harm or actual injury does not suffice. Generalized grievances shared by the public at large also fail this requirement.
Supporting sources
No. Congress cannot eliminate the Article III case-or-controversy requirement by statute. Even when a statute authorizes suits, plaintiffs must still show a concrete and particularized injury in fact rather than a generalized interest in government compliance with the law.
Supporting sources
Standing must exist at every stage of the litigation, including on appeal. A party that lacked a personal concrete stake when the case began or loses that stake later cannot maintain the action in federal court.
Supporting sources
A statutory violation may satisfy concreteness if it creates a real risk of harm to the plaintiff. A purely procedural violation divorced from any actual or threatened injury does not meet the requirement.
Supporting sources
…adequate safeguards against abuse), vacated, Lee v. Oregon , 107 F. 3d 1382 (CA9 1997) (concluding that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing). Lee , of course, is not before us, any more than it was before the Court of Appeals below, and we offer no opinion as to the validity of the Lee courts' reasoning. In Vacco v.…