Also known as: standing to sue · litigation standing · standing · locus standi
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional and procedural requirement that a litigant must demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome of a controversy to invoke a court's jurisdiction. The requirement prevents parties from asserting the legal rights of third parties and ensures that courts address concrete disputes rather than abstract questions.
Selena Singh sought to challenge a conviction by asserting that the trial court misapplied the M'Naghten test to a codefendant's mental state. The court dismissed her claim because she had no personal stake in the codefendant's acquittal and could not litigate his defense rights. Her attempt to raise the issue failed for lack of standing to litigate.
Scott Summers sued a physician for failing to meet the skill standard of similar communities in a rural area. The court held that Summers lacked standing because he was not the patient who received the services and could not assert the patient's injury. The action was dismissed for want of standing to litigate.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Simon Stern claimed a security interest in embedded software and filed suit to enforce it against a buyer. The court ruled that Stern had standing because he held a direct interest in the movable goods at the time the security interest attached. Without that personal stake the action would have been dismissed.
Sabrina Shah attempted to litigate a self-defense privilege on behalf of a neighbor who used force causing serious bodily harm. The court denied standing because Shah suffered no injury herself and could not assert the neighbor's defense rights. The claim was dismissed for lack of standing to litigate.
Sebastian Santos asserted a perfected interest in crops grown on leased land and sued to recover them after default. The court found standing because Santos held a direct security interest in the farm products at attachment. A party without such an interest would have been barred from litigating the claim.
Sterling Manufacturing and local taxpayers challenged a municipal zoning ordinance that restricted development. The court held they lacked standing because they were not subject to the ordinance and alleged no personal injury from its enforcement. The suit was dismissed under the rule against asserting third-party rights.
A plaintiff must demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome sufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction. This includes injury in fact, causation, and redressability. The rule prevents litigants from asserting the rights of third parties absent special circumstances.
Taxpayers generally lack standing to challenge government expenditures because they cannot show a personal injury distinct from that suffered by the public at large. An exception exists only when the challenge rests on the establishment clause and meets narrow criteria.
Congress may remove prudential barriers to standing by statute but cannot override the constitutional minimum of a concrete personal injury. Without that injury a statutory grant alone will not confer standing to litigate.
A litigant may assert third-party rights when enforcement of a restriction against the litigant would indirectly violate those rights and when a close relationship exists between the litigant and the third party. The third party must also face some hindrance to asserting its own rights.
…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 enforcement.…