Also known as: generalized grievances
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A claim of injury shared in substantially equal measure by all citizens that does not satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. Such a claim typically asserts only an abstract interest in having the government follow the law or in proper governmental procedures. The principle bars federal courts from adjudicating disputes that amount to policy disagreements better addressed by the political branches.
Civic activists Lopez, Chen, and Ortiz sued the Federal Office of Government Ethics after it declined to investigate alleged conflicts involving executive appointees. They alleged that all citizens suffer injury when officials evade ethics standards. The court dismissed the suit because the asserted harm was shared equally by the public at large and supplied no concrete stake distinguishing the plaintiffs.
Low-income residents and a housing organization sued the town of Penfield alleging exclusionary zoning practices that limited affordable housing options. None of the plaintiffs owned property in Penfield or had submitted a specific development proposal that the town rejected. The court held that their allegations amounted only to a generalized grievance shared by all low- and moderate-income persons in the region.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Federal taxpayers sued to enjoin expenditures under a statute they claimed violated the Establishment Clause by funding religious schools. The complaint rested solely on their status as taxpayers and an interest in preventing unconstitutional uses of public funds. The court ruled that this bare assertion of injury failed to present a justiciable controversy.
Current residents of Arlington Heights challenged a zoning decision that blocked construction of a racially integrated housing development near their neighborhood. They alleged only that the decision perpetuated segregation affecting the broader community. The court found their claimed injury too diffuse to support standing because it did not identify a particularized harm to the plaintiffs themselves.
Citizens for a Better Environment sued a company for failing to file required environmental reports under federal law. The complaint alleged only that the violation harmed the public interest in regulatory compliance. The court dismissed the action because the plaintiffs identified no concrete injury to themselves beyond the general desire that the statute be obeyed.
A nonprofit organization sued to block the federal government's transfer of surplus property to a religious college. The group alleged that the transfer violated the Establishment Clause and harmed all citizens interested in separation of church and state. The court held that the asserted injury was a generalized grievance insufficient to confer standing.
A generalized grievance asserts harm shared equally by all citizens, such as an interest in governmental compliance with the law. A particularized injury affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way that is concrete rather than abstract.
Supporting sources
No. Even when a statute authorizes citizen suits, plaintiffs must still allege a concrete and particularized injury in fact. Congress cannot override the Article III requirement by authorizing suits based solely on an interest in lawful government action.
Supporting sources
No. A bare allegation that the government violated a statute or failed to follow required procedures constitutes a generalized grievance. The plaintiff must identify a concrete and particularized harm to itself or its members beyond the statutory breach.
Supporting sources
Claims that a federal policy will generally worsen landscapes or weather over time for everyone are treated as generalized grievances. Plaintiffs must allege a specific, imminent harm to a particular place or interest they use rather than a diffuse policy concern shared by the public.
Supporting sources
…include “the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiff’s complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” Allen v.…