RESEARCH STARTER

Standing and the Supreme Court

Standing is a legal doctrine that determines whether a party has the right to bring a lawsuit in federal court. Central to this doctrine are three constitutional requirements: injury, causation, and redressability. A plaintiff must demonstrate they have suffered or will suffer a personal injury, that the injury is linked to the action of the defendant, and that a favorable court decision would provide a remedy for that injury. In addition to these constitutional criteria, the Supreme Court has established prudential requirements, such as the prohibition of third-party claims and the necessity for plaintiffs to be within the “zone of interests” protected by the relevant statute when challenging agency actions.

The doctrine of standing is designed to ensure that litigants have a personal stake in the outcome, which promotes effective judicial decision-making and prevents an overload of cases based on generalized grievances or political interests. Furthermore, standing serves to maintain the separation of powers by limiting the courts' ability to review actions taken by Congress and the executive branch. This complexity has led to significant debate around the standing doctrine, with some critics arguing that it restricts access to the courts and undermines legitimate claims. Overall, understanding standing is crucial for comprehending how federal courts navigate issues of jurisdiction and the balance of power within the U.S. government.

Full Article

DEFINITION: A jurisdictional requirement in federal court that a litigant has been injured or threatened with imminent injury by the governmental action of which they complain. Sometimes called “standing to sue.”

SIGNIFICANCE: The Court is frequently suspected of using this procedural device, designed to restrict access to the federal courts to plaintiffs who have sufficiently significant stakes in the outcome of litigation, to affect the substantive outcome of cases by allowing it to hear a particular case or to avoid deciding a difficult one.

Unlike the other federal justiciability doctrines, mootness, ripeness, political question, and the ban on advisory opinions, standing focuses primarily on the party bringing an issue before the court and only secondarily on the issues the party seeks to adjudicate. To have standing, any litigant raising an issue in federal court must meet three constitutionally mandated requirements: injury, causation, and redressability. In addition, the Supreme Court has imposed nonconstitutional, or “prudential,” restrictions, prohibiting third-party claims and generalized grievances. Plaintiffs challenging agency action under a federal statute must show that their claims fall within the “zone of interests” protected by the statute. Some nonconstitutional standing limitations may be modified or overridden by Congress, although the Supreme Court has narrowed the role of “prudential” standing doctrines in recent decisions.

A variety of reasons have been articulated by the Court and by scholars for the standing requirements. By requiring that a plaintiff have a personal stake in the outcome of a case, standing was said in Baker v. Carr (1962) to improve judicial decision making by ensuring the “concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the Court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions”; it is also said to promote judicial efficiency by preventing a deluge of lawsuits brought by persons with nothing more than a political or ideological interest in the outcome. By ensuring that plaintiffs can litigate only their own rights, standing is said to promote fairness by excluding meddlers who may be trying to protect the interests of those who do not want or feel the need for such protection. Finally, and probably most importantly, standing limits the availability of judicial review of congressional and executive decisions and thus promotes the separation of powers, which the Court has called the “single basic idea” of standing in Allen v. Wright (1984).

As a jurisdictional requirement, standing cannot be waived by the parties; even when the defendant does not raise it, the court may do so sua sponte, or voluntarily, at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. If a decision is ultimately made against standing, the case is dismissed, even if the matter has already been decided on the merits by the trial court and has gone through one or two appeals.

Injury

The Court ruled that a plaintiff must “show he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury” in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State (1982). The requirement ensures the existence of an actual dispute between litigants and is at the heart of the standing doctrine. The “personal” component was emphasized in Sierra Club v. Morton (1972), where the Court denied standing in an environmental case to an organization that had failed to allege that any of its members had used the land threatened by the challenged governmental policies and therefore could not show any injury to the members. The “actual or threatened” component was explained in City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983). A black man who had been injured when subjected to a choke hold by police officers was permitted to sue for damages, but he was denied standing to seek an injunction against future use of the life-threatening choke hold by police officers because he could not show that he himself was likely to be subjected to it again.

No rule or defining principle exists to determine what kind of injury will satisfy standing. However, clearly, injuries to common law (personal injury, contract, property), constitutional, and statutory rights are sufficient to confer standing. In addition, the court has recognized the fact or threat of criminal prosecution (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972), economic harm (Barlow v. Collins, 1970), and injury to aesthetic interests (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 1992). Injuries that the Court has held insufficient to afford standing include stigmatization by a governmental policy of granting tax-exempt status to private schools that discriminate on the basis of race (Allen v. Wright) and a threat to marital happiness because state abortion laws force a choice between refraining from normal sexual relations and endangering the wife’s health (Roe v. Wade, 1973).

The mere existence of an injury is not enough. A plaintiff must also show that the injury was caused by the governmental action of which they complained and is likely to be redressed by the requested relief. In Warth v. Seldin (1975), causation and redressability were treated as closely related; in Allen v. Wright (1984), they were more clearly articulated as separate requirements, both of which must be established. The concepts are closely enough related that ordinarily either both or neither will be met. Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization (1976), for example, involved a challenge to an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulation reducing the amount of free medical care that tax-exempt hospitals were required to provide. Plaintiffs argued that they were injured by the denial of needed medical care. The Court nevertheless denied standing because it was “purely speculative” whether the plaintiffs’ loss of medical services could be traced to the IRS ruling and because there was no substantial likelihood that victory in the case would ensure the plaintiffs received the hospital care they sought.

No Third-Party Claims

The legal rights and interests asserted must be those of the plaintiff, not those of a third person, not a party to the lawsuit. In Warth v. Seldin (1975), taxpayers of Rochester, New York, sought to challenge allegedly discriminatory zoning in the suburb of Penfield, alleging that they were injured by higher property-tax rates resulting from Rochester’s need to provide additional low-income housing. The Court refused to allow the Rochester taxpayers to assert the constitutional rights of low-income minorities allegedly excluded from Penfield.

Four well-established exceptions exist. First, a third-party claim will be allowed when the third party is unlikely to be able to sue or have an incentive to do so. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), a physician convicted of distributing contraceptives to a married couple was permitted to raise the substantive due process rights of the couple, and in Powers v. Ohio (1991), a black criminal defendant convicted by an all-white jury was permitted to raise the rights of black jurors excluded from the jury. Second, a third-party claim may also be allowed when there is a close relationship between the plaintiff and the third party. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), a religious school was permitted to raise the constitutional rights of its students and their parents when the state attempted to require that children attend public school. Third, an association will be permitted to assert the rights of its members, as in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958).

A fourth exception to the third-party rule is the overbreadth doctrine. In First Amendment cases, a litigant has been permitted to make a facial challenge to a statute even though the law, if narrowly construed, could constitutionally prohibit the litigant’s activity. Such a facial challenge is permitted when the law appears to be overly broad and thus possibly having a chilling effect on constitutionally protected activity. In Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim (1981), operators of an adult bookstore challenged a zoning ordinance for presenting nude dancing in an area where the zoning laws excluded all live entertainment. The Court allowed the store owner to raise in defense the First Amendment rights of others to present constitutionally protected live entertainment.

Other Prudential Requirements

The Court will ordinarily deny standing when a plaintiff’s only injury is as a taxpayer or citizen asserting an interest in having the government obey the law. In Frothingham v. Mellon (1923), the Court denied standing to a taxpayer who challenged the constitutionality, under the Tenth Amendment, of the Maternity Act of 1921. Although the improper expenditure of taxpayers’ money may arguably amount to an injury to an individual taxpayer, her interest was “comparatively minute and indeterminable.” In Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War (1974), the Court held that plaintiffs in their capacity as U.S. citizens lacked the capacity to challenge, under Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution, the practice of allowing members of Congress to hold commissions in the Armed Forces Reserves. In Flast v. Cohen (1968), the Court created a narrow exception by allowing standing when the taxpayer alleged that Congress was violating a particular constitutional prohibition, such as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, rather than merely exceeding its delegated powers, as in Frothingham.

In cases where a claim is brought under a federal statute, and the plaintiff is not directly subject to the contested regulatory action, the Court has established an additional requirement: that the right or interest the plaintiff is attempting to vindicate be within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statute. The Court stated in Clarke v. Securities Industry Association (1987) that the zone-of-interests requirement is not meant to establish a high barrier for plaintiffs and that it is the defendant who bears the burden of proving the congressional intent to preclude judicial review in such cases. This was traditionally described as an example of a congressional waiver of a prudential requirement. The Court’s willingness to find standing to challenge an administrative action under a statute, while it would likely deny standing to such a general claim brought under the Constitution, is a reflection of the Court’s concern with judicial restraint and its proper role vis-à-vis the other branches. In 2011, in Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that criminal defendants have standing and may challenge the constitutionality of statutes under the Tenth Amendment.

Another twenty-first-century landmark case was Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). In this case, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of state standing by recognizing that states, due to their quasi-sovereign status, are entitled to “special solicitude” in the standing analysis. This meant the Court applied a more lenient standard when evaluating whether Massachusetts had the right to sue the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) for failing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Court accepted the state’s claims of environmental harm—such as rising sea levels threatening its coastline—as concrete injuries, even though the potential benefits of EPA regulation were uncertain or incremental. By doing so, the Court broadened the traditional requirements of injury, causation, and redressability for states, making it easier for them to challenge federal inaction, especially in complex issues like climate change.

A Controversial Doctrine

Standing is among the most analyzed and most criticized of judicial doctrines. The Court’s treatment of it over the years has been called incoherent, erratic, and bizarre. It has even been suggested that there should be no standing doctrine at all, that the question of standing is part of the merits of the litigant’s claim. Much of the problem stems from the Court’s inability to develop a consistent philosophy of standing and to relate it to a view of the proper role of the judiciary in a system of checks and balances and of the proper role of a national judiciary in a federal system. Although there is much to be said for the efforts of, particularly, the Burger Court (1969– 1986) to respect the separation of powers and to avoid unnecessary judicial intervention in the affairs of the other branches of government, it should be recognized that an overly narrow view of standing will deny legitimate litigants their day in court. In Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections (2026), the Supreme Court allowed a political candidate to challenge election rules, signaling a possible relaxation of the traditional ‘injury in fact’ requirement in certain election cases. Supreme Court cases show a continuing inconsistency, with more permissive standing in election-related disputes but more restrictive approaches in administrative and federal power cases.


Bibliography

“An Abdication Approach to State Standing.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 132, no. 4, Feb. 2019, harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-132/an-abdication-approach-to-state-standing/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

“ArtIII.S2.C1.6.1 Overview of Standing.” Constitution Annotated, Library of Congress, constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-6-1/ALDE_00012992/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Chemerinsky, Erwin. Constitutional Law, Principles and Policies. 7th ed., Aspen Law & Business, 2023.

Doernberg, Donald. “We the People: John Locke, Collective Constitutional Rights, and Standing to Challenge Government Action.” California Law Review, vol. 73, pp. 52–118, 1985, digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/51/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Fletcher, William. “The Structure of Standing.” Yale Law Journal, vol. 98, 1988, openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/16586/19_98YaleLJ221_December1988_.pdf. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Howe, Amy. “Supreme Court Announces Cases It Will Hear at Term’s End.” SCOTUSblog, 11 Feb. 2026, www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/supreme-court-announces-cases-it-will-hear-at-terms-end/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

King, Ryan. “SCOTUS Rules Illinois GOP Rep Can Challenge State Mail-in Ballot Rules in Case with 2028 Election Implications.” New York Post, 14 Jan. 2026, nypost.com/2026/01/14/us-news/supreme-court-rules-illinois-gop-rep-can-challenge-state-mail-in-ballot-rules-in-case-with-2028-election-implications/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Rotunda, Ronald D., and John E. Nowak. Constitutional Law. 8th ed., Thomson/West, 2010.

Rotunda, Ronald D., and John E. Nowak. Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure. 5th ed., West Publishing, 2012.

Scalia, Antonin. “The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers.” Suffolk University Law Review, vol. 17, 1983. bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.suffolk.edu/dist/3/1172/files/2015/11/Scalia_17SuffolkULRev881.pdf. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Stone, Christopher D. “Should Trees Have Standing?--Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects,” Southern California Law Review, vol. 45, 1972. iseethics.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/stone-christopher-d-should-trees-have-standing.pdf. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Tribe, Lawrence H. American Constitutional Law. 3rd ed., Foundation Press, 2000.

Tushnet, Mark. “The New Law of Standing, a Plea for Abandonment.” Cornell Law Review, vol. 62, 1977.

Wright, Charles Alan The Law of Federal Courts. 8th ed., West Publishing, 2017.

Full Article

DEFINITION: A jurisdictional requirement in federal court that a litigant has been injured or threatened with imminent injury by the governmental action of which they complain. Sometimes called “standing to sue.”

SIGNIFICANCE: The Court is frequently suspected of using this procedural device, designed to restrict access to the federal courts to plaintiffs who have sufficiently significant stakes in the outcome of litigation, to affect the substantive outcome of cases by allowing it to hear a particular case or to avoid deciding a difficult one.

Unlike the other federal justiciability doctrines, mootness, ripeness, political question, and the ban on advisory opinions, standing focuses primarily on the party bringing an issue before the court and only secondarily on the issues the party seeks to adjudicate. To have standing, any litigant raising an issue in federal court must meet three constitutionally mandated requirements: injury, causation, and redressability. In addition, the Supreme Court has imposed nonconstitutional, or “prudential,” restrictions, prohibiting third-party claims and generalized grievances. Plaintiffs challenging agency action under a federal statute must show that their claims fall within the “zone of interests” protected by the statute. Some nonconstitutional standing limitations may be modified or overridden by Congress, although the Supreme Court has narrowed the role of “prudential” standing doctrines in recent decisions.

A variety of reasons have been articulated by the Court and by scholars for the standing requirements. By requiring that a plaintiff have a personal stake in the outcome of a case, standing was said in Baker v. Carr (1962) to improve judicial decision making by ensuring the “concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the Court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions”; it is also said to promote judicial efficiency by preventing a deluge of lawsuits brought by persons with nothing more than a political or ideological interest in the outcome. By ensuring that plaintiffs can litigate only their own rights, standing is said to promote fairness by excluding meddlers who may be trying to protect the interests of those who do not want or feel the need for such protection. Finally, and probably most importantly, standing limits the availability of judicial review of congressional and executive decisions and thus promotes the separation of powers, which the Court has called the “single basic idea” of standing in Allen v. Wright (1984).

As a jurisdictional requirement, standing cannot be waived by the parties; even when the defendant does not raise it, the court may do so sua sponte, or voluntarily, at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. If a decision is ultimately made against standing, the case is dismissed, even if the matter has already been decided on the merits by the trial court and has gone through one or two appeals.

Injury

The Court ruled that a plaintiff must “show he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury” in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State (1982). The requirement ensures the existence of an actual dispute between litigants and is at the heart of the standing doctrine. The “personal” component was emphasized in Sierra Club v. Morton (1972), where the Court denied standing in an environmental case to an organization that had failed to allege that any of its members had used the land threatened by the challenged governmental policies and therefore could not show any injury to the members. The “actual or threatened” component was explained in City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983). A black man who had been injured when subjected to a choke hold by police officers was permitted to sue for damages, but he was denied standing to seek an injunction against future use of the life-threatening choke hold by police officers because he could not show that he himself was likely to be subjected to it again.

No rule or defining principle exists to determine what kind of injury will satisfy standing. However, clearly, injuries to common law (personal injury, contract, property), constitutional, and statutory rights are sufficient to confer standing. In addition, the court has recognized the fact or threat of criminal prosecution (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972), economic harm (Barlow v. Collins, 1970), and injury to aesthetic interests (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 1992). Injuries that the Court has held insufficient to afford standing include stigmatization by a governmental policy of granting tax-exempt status to private schools that discriminate on the basis of race (Allen v. Wright) and a threat to marital happiness because state abortion laws force a choice between refraining from normal sexual relations and endangering the wife’s health (Roe v. Wade, 1973).

The mere existence of an injury is not enough. A plaintiff must also show that the injury was caused by the governmental action of which they complained and is likely to be redressed by the requested relief. In Warth v. Seldin (1975), causation and redressability were treated as closely related; in Allen v. Wright (1984), they were more clearly articulated as separate requirements, both of which must be established. The concepts are closely enough related that ordinarily either both or neither will be met. Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization (1976), for example, involved a challenge to an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulation reducing the amount of free medical care that tax-exempt hospitals were required to provide. Plaintiffs argued that they were injured by the denial of needed medical care. The Court nevertheless denied standing because it was “purely speculative” whether the plaintiffs’ loss of medical services could be traced to the IRS ruling and because there was no substantial likelihood that victory in the case would ensure the plaintiffs received the hospital care they sought.

No Third-Party Claims

The legal rights and interests asserted must be those of the plaintiff, not those of a third person, not a party to the lawsuit. In Warth v. Seldin (1975), taxpayers of Rochester, New York, sought to challenge allegedly discriminatory zoning in the suburb of Penfield, alleging that they were injured by higher property-tax rates resulting from Rochester’s need to provide additional low-income housing. The Court refused to allow the Rochester taxpayers to assert the constitutional rights of low-income minorities allegedly excluded from Penfield.

Four well-established exceptions exist. First, a third-party claim will be allowed when the third party is unlikely to be able to sue or have an incentive to do so. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), a physician convicted of distributing contraceptives to a married couple was permitted to raise the substantive due process rights of the couple, and in Powers v. Ohio (1991), a black criminal defendant convicted by an all-white jury was permitted to raise the rights of black jurors excluded from the jury. Second, a third-party claim may also be allowed when there is a close relationship between the plaintiff and the third party. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), a religious school was permitted to raise the constitutional rights of its students and their parents when the state attempted to require that children attend public school. Third, an association will be permitted to assert the rights of its members, as in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958).

A fourth exception to the third-party rule is the overbreadth doctrine. In First Amendment cases, a litigant has been permitted to make a facial challenge to a statute even though the law, if narrowly construed, could constitutionally prohibit the litigant’s activity. Such a facial challenge is permitted when the law appears to be overly broad and thus possibly having a chilling effect on constitutionally protected activity. In Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim (1981), operators of an adult bookstore challenged a zoning ordinance for presenting nude dancing in an area where the zoning laws excluded all live entertainment. The Court allowed the store owner to raise in defense the First Amendment rights of others to present constitutionally protected live entertainment.

Other Prudential Requirements

The Court will ordinarily deny standing when a plaintiff’s only injury is as a taxpayer or citizen asserting an interest in having the government obey the law. In Frothingham v. Mellon (1923), the Court denied standing to a taxpayer who challenged the constitutionality, under the Tenth Amendment, of the Maternity Act of 1921. Although the improper expenditure of taxpayers’ money may arguably amount to an injury to an individual taxpayer, her interest was “comparatively minute and indeterminable.” In Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War (1974), the Court held that plaintiffs in their capacity as U.S. citizens lacked the capacity to challenge, under Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution, the practice of allowing members of Congress to hold commissions in the Armed Forces Reserves. In Flast v. Cohen (1968), the Court created a narrow exception by allowing standing when the taxpayer alleged that Congress was violating a particular constitutional prohibition, such as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, rather than merely exceeding its delegated powers, as in Frothingham.

In cases where a claim is brought under a federal statute, and the plaintiff is not directly subject to the contested regulatory action, the Court has established an additional requirement: that the right or interest the plaintiff is attempting to vindicate be within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statute. The Court stated in Clarke v. Securities Industry Association (1987) that the zone-of-interests requirement is not meant to establish a high barrier for plaintiffs and that it is the defendant who bears the burden of proving the congressional intent to preclude judicial review in such cases. This was traditionally described as an example of a congressional waiver of a prudential requirement. The Court’s willingness to find standing to challenge an administrative action under a statute, while it would likely deny standing to such a general claim brought under the Constitution, is a reflection of the Court’s concern with judicial restraint and its proper role vis-à-vis the other branches. In 2011, in Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that criminal defendants have standing and may challenge the constitutionality of statutes under the Tenth Amendment.

Another twenty-first-century landmark case was Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). In this case, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of state standing by recognizing that states, due to their quasi-sovereign status, are entitled to “special solicitude” in the standing analysis. This meant the Court applied a more lenient standard when evaluating whether Massachusetts had the right to sue the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) for failing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Court accepted the state’s claims of environmental harm—such as rising sea levels threatening its coastline—as concrete injuries, even though the potential benefits of EPA regulation were uncertain or incremental. By doing so, the Court broadened the traditional requirements of injury, causation, and redressability for states, making it easier for them to challenge federal inaction, especially in complex issues like climate change.

A Controversial Doctrine

Standing is among the most analyzed and most criticized of judicial doctrines. The Court’s treatment of it over the years has been called incoherent, erratic, and bizarre. It has even been suggested that there should be no standing doctrine at all, that the question of standing is part of the merits of the litigant’s claim. Much of the problem stems from the Court’s inability to develop a consistent philosophy of standing and to relate it to a view of the proper role of the judiciary in a system of checks and balances and of the proper role of a national judiciary in a federal system. Although there is much to be said for the efforts of, particularly, the Burger Court (1969– 1986) to respect the separation of powers and to avoid unnecessary judicial intervention in the affairs of the other branches of government, it should be recognized that an overly narrow view of standing will deny legitimate litigants their day in court. In Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections (2026), the Supreme Court allowed a political candidate to challenge election rules, signaling a possible relaxation of the traditional ‘injury in fact’ requirement in certain election cases. Supreme Court cases show a continuing inconsistency, with more permissive standing in election-related disputes but more restrictive approaches in administrative and federal power cases.


Bibliography

“An Abdication Approach to State Standing.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 132, no. 4, Feb. 2019, harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-132/an-abdication-approach-to-state-standing/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

“ArtIII.S2.C1.6.1 Overview of Standing.” Constitution Annotated, Library of Congress, constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-6-1/ALDE_00012992/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Chemerinsky, Erwin. Constitutional Law, Principles and Policies. 7th ed., Aspen Law & Business, 2023.

Doernberg, Donald. “We the People: John Locke, Collective Constitutional Rights, and Standing to Challenge Government Action.” California Law Review, vol. 73, pp. 52–118, 1985, digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/51/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Fletcher, William. “The Structure of Standing.” Yale Law Journal, vol. 98, 1988, openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/16586/19_98YaleLJ221_December1988_.pdf. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Howe, Amy. “Supreme Court Announces Cases It Will Hear at Term’s End.” SCOTUSblog, 11 Feb. 2026, www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/supreme-court-announces-cases-it-will-hear-at-terms-end/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

King, Ryan. “SCOTUS Rules Illinois GOP Rep Can Challenge State Mail-in Ballot Rules in Case with 2028 Election Implications.” New York Post, 14 Jan. 2026, nypost.com/2026/01/14/us-news/supreme-court-rules-illinois-gop-rep-can-challenge-state-mail-in-ballot-rules-in-case-with-2028-election-implications/. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Rotunda, Ronald D., and John E. Nowak. Constitutional Law. 8th ed., Thomson/West, 2010.

Rotunda, Ronald D., and John E. Nowak. Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure. 5th ed., West Publishing, 2012.

Scalia, Antonin. “The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers.” Suffolk University Law Review, vol. 17, 1983. bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.suffolk.edu/dist/3/1172/files/2015/11/Scalia_17SuffolkULRev881.pdf. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Stone, Christopher D. “Should Trees Have Standing?--Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects,” Southern California Law Review, vol. 45, 1972. iseethics.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/stone-christopher-d-should-trees-have-standing.pdf. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.

Tribe, Lawrence H. American Constitutional Law. 3rd ed., Foundation Press, 2000.

Tushnet, Mark. “The New Law of Standing, a Plea for Abandonment.” Cornell Law Review, vol. 62, 1977.

Wright, Charles Alan The Law of Federal Courts. 8th ed., West Publishing, 2017.

More Like ThisRelated Articles

Related Articles (5)

Related Articles (5)