Standing

Standing is the threshold question of whether a party is entitled to bring a lawsuit at all. Federal courts may decide only "cases" and "controversies" under Article III of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has read that phrase to require a real dispute between parties with a personal stake.

Under Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992), a plaintiff must show three things: an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, actual or imminent; a causal link between the injury and the defendant's conduct; and a likelihood that a court ruling would redress it. A general grievance shared by all citizens, such as an interest in seeing the law obeyed, is usually not enough. States, organizations and taxpayers face particular rules.

Standing is often decisive in politically charged cases, including challenges to election procedures, student-loan forgiveness and immigration policy, where courts dismiss suits without reaching the merits. Supporters see strict standing rules as a guard for separation of powers that keeps courts from becoming super-legislatures. Critics argue the doctrine is applied inconsistently and can leave unlawful government action unreviewable. Related limits include the political question doctrine.