Also known as: standing principle · principles of standing · standing · doctrine of standing · locus standi
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural requirement that limits access to federal courts by demanding that a litigant demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and redressable by a favorable judicial decision.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Phuong Pham was convicted after a jury rejected her insanity defense. She appealed, arguing that her inability to control her actions due to mental illness should have produced an acquittal. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of standing because Phuong had already been convicted and could not show a redressable injury from the trial court's application of the traditional test.
Pierre Poulin sued a surgeon for malpractice after a procedure performed in a small community hospital. The complaint alleged that the surgeon failed to meet the skill level of specialists in major cities. The court dismissed for lack of standing, holding that Pierre could not establish an injury traceable to any deviation from the community standard of care.
Premier Manufacturing claimed a security interest in software embedded in factory equipment sold to a debtor. When the debtor filed bankruptcy, Premier sought a declaration that the software qualified as goods. The bankruptcy court denied standing because Premier could not demonstrate a concrete injury from the classification that a favorable ruling would redress.
Pierce Patterson sought a declaratory judgment that he could use deadly force against an intruder who posed only a minor threat. The court dismissed the action for lack of standing, finding that Pierce had not suffered an actual injury and that any ruling would amount to an advisory opinion on the meaning of serious bodily harm.
Progressive Healthcare asserted a security interest in livestock raised by a borrower engaged in farming. After default, the lender asked the court to classify the animals as farm products rather than equipment. The court held that Progressive lacked standing because it could not show a particularized injury traceable to the classification that judicial relief would remedy.
Prism Analytics and several members sued federal agencies over a regulation that allegedly threatened endangered species abroad. The plaintiffs alleged only a general interest in wildlife preservation. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to show imminent, concrete injury to themselves that a favorable decision would redress.
A plaintiff 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.
Supporting sources
No. A plaintiff must show a concrete and imminent injury to itself rather than a mere abstract concern about environmental harm.
Supporting sources
Standing requires a redressable injury. Once convicted, a defendant ordinarily cannot obtain standing to relitigate the application of the M'Naghten test on appeal.
…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…