Difference between revisions of "Standing"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*''[[Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver. Comm'n]]'' | *''[[Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver. Comm'n]]'' | ||
*''[[Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife]]'' | *''[[Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife]]'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Only one of the petitioners needs to have standing to permit the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] to consider the petition for review" | ||
| + | |||
| + | *''[[Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc.]]'', 547 U.S. 47, 52, n. 2, 126 S. Ct. 1297, 164 L. Ed. 2d 156 (2006). | ||
In [[Establishment Clause]] cases, plaintiffs challenge religion in public life based on two separate types of standing: | In [[Establishment Clause]] cases, plaintiffs challenge religion in public life based on two separate types of standing: | ||
| Line 12: | Line 16: | ||
[[Category:Establishment Clause]] | [[Category:Establishment Clause]] | ||
[[Category:Constitution]] | [[Category:Constitution]] | ||
| + | [[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Revision as of 02:09, September 16, 2007
Standing is the legal right to bring a lawsuit. Only a person with something actually at stake in a dispute has standing to bring a lawsuit.
The leading precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court on standing are:
- Ass'n of Data Processing Serv. Org., Inc. v. Camp
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver. Comm'n
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
Only one of the petitioners needs to have standing to permit the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the petition for review"
- Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 52, n. 2, 126 S. Ct. 1297, 164 L. Ed. 2d 156 (2006).
In Establishment Clause cases, plaintiffs challenge religion in public life based on two separate types of standing:
- taxpayer standing
- non-economic injury, such as alleged offense or feeling of exclusion