Also known as: generalized grievance
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An asserted injury shared in substantially equal measure by all or most citizens that lacks the particularization required for Article III standing. Such claims rest on a bare interest in lawful government action rather than a distinct personal harm.
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 only that all citizens suffer when officials evade ethics rules. The court dismissed the suit because the claimed injury was shared equally by the public at large and supplied no particularized harm to the plaintiffs.
Taxpayers Gordon Gray and Gregory Gates sued to enjoin a federal appropriation they viewed as unconstitutional. They alleged only that the expenditure violated the Constitution and harmed them as citizens. The court held that their interest in proper government spending was a generalized grievance shared by all taxpayers and therefore insufficient for standing.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Residents Gwen Gallagher and Grace Gupta challenged a town's zoning ordinance that they claimed restricted housing options for low-income families. They alleged only a general interest in open housing markets without claiming they had been denied housing themselves. The court dismissed the action because the asserted injury was not particular to them but shared broadly with the public.
Americans United sued to block a federal land transfer to a religious college. The group alleged only that the transfer violated the Establishment Clause and harmed all citizens interested in separation of church and state. The court held that the claim presented a generalized grievance and granted the motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
Citizens for a Better Environment sued a company for failing to file required environmental reports under federal law. The group alleged only that the violation harmed the public interest in compliance. The court dismissed the suit because the asserted injury was a generalized grievance shared equally by all citizens rather than a concrete harm to the plaintiffs.
Members of the Reservists Committee to Stop the War sued to bar members of Congress from holding commissions in the armed forces reserves. They alleged only that the dual service violated the Constitution and injured all citizens. The court held that the claim was a generalized grievance and dismissed for lack of standing.
A generalized grievance is shared equally by all or most citizens and rests on a bare interest in government compliance with law. A particularized injury affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way that is distinct from the public at large.
Supporting sources
No. Even when a statute authorizes citizen suits, plaintiffs must still allege a concrete and particularized injury. Congress cannot convert an undifferentiated public interest in lawful government into an individual right vindicable in federal court.
Supporting sources
No. A bare allegation that the government violated a statute or failed to follow the law is a classic generalized grievance. The plaintiff must identify a concrete and particularized harm to itself or its members beyond the statutory breach.
Supporting sources
Courts treat them as nonjusticiable generalized grievances. Allegations that a federal policy will generally worsen conditions for everyone or that the government should adopt stronger nationwide rules do not supply the particularized injury Article III demands.
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.…