Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A principle of Article III standing under which a plaintiff lacks a concrete and particularized injury when asserting only that the government is violating the law in a manner shared by all citizens.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Generalized Grievance on Military Commissions
Claire Campbell, a concerned citizen, sued federal officials alleging that members of Congress holding military commissions violated the Incompatibility Clause. She asserted only that the appointments undermined constitutional structure and that she, like every other citizen, suffered from the violation. The court dismissed the action because her claimed injury was shared by the entire public and did not constitute the particularized harm required for standing.
Challenge to Professional Licensing Rules
Catherine Carter filed suit claiming that a state agency failed to enforce licensing standards for professionals in her community. She alleged only that the agency's inaction violated statutory duties owed to the public at large. The court held that her interest was indistinguishable from that of any other resident and therefore insufficient to support standing.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Statutes
Federal Rules
Uniform Acts
Model Codes
Common Law
Restatements
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Study Supplements
Camila Cervantes brought an action asserting that a federal regulation governing the definition of goods in secured transactions was unconstitutional. She claimed injury solely as a citizen affected by improper government rulemaking. The court dismissed for lack of standing because the asserted harm was a generalized grievance common to all citizens rather than a concrete injury personal to her.
Suit Over Self-Defense Standards
Cody Callahan sought declaratory relief arguing that a state statute defining serious bodily harm for self-defense purposes was being misapplied by prosecutors. He alleged only that the statute's existence threatened the rights of all citizens. The court ruled that this generalized interest did not satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing.
Complaint Regarding Farm Product Classifications
Colin Chambers challenged a federal agency's interpretation of farm products under the UCC as exceeding statutory authority. He asserted standing merely as a citizen opposed to the agency's action. The court found no particularized injury and dismissed the case on the ground that the claimed harm was shared equally by the public.
Environmental Statute Enforcement Claim
Corinne Cho sued to compel enforcement of a federal wildlife protection statute, alleging that government inaction injured her as a citizen interested in lawful administration. She identified no concrete, personal harm distinct from that suffered by the general public. The court denied standing because citizen standing requires more than a generalized grievance about government noncompliance with the law.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife504 U.S. 555 (1992)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
What injury must a plaintiff show to establish citizen standing?+
A plaintiff must demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent, not merely a generalized grievance shared by all citizens that the government is violating the law.
Supporting sources
Does congressional legislation ever confer citizen standing?+
In the absence of congressional legislation creating a private right of action, a citizen lacks standing to challenge federal actions as unconstitutional on the basis of a generalized grievance.
Supporting sources
How does citizen standing differ from taxpayer standing?+
Citizen standing involves a generalized interest in lawful government shared by all citizens, while taxpayer standing requires a direct financial injury from the challenged government expenditure that is distinct from the public at large.
Supporting sources
410 U.S. 113 (1973)Constitutional Law
…District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to which the action was referred, held that the Does and Hallford had no standing to sue, but that Roe did have standing, and that the Texas abortion laws were unconstitutional. The court declared the laws void but refused to issue an injunction against their…