Difference between revisions of "Standing"
(plan to add citations to this and expand!) |
(added quote) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''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. Only one of the petitioners needs to have standing to permit the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] to consider the petition for review: | + | '''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. |
| + | |||
| + | {{cquote|To qualify for standing, a claimant must present an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the defendant's challenged behavior; and likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling.}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''Davis v. FEC'', 128 S. Ct. 2759, 2768 (2008). | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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). | *''[[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). | ||
| Line 8: | Line 14: | ||
*''[[Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife]]'' | *''[[Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife]]'' | ||
| − | In [[Establishment Clause]] cases, plaintiffs challenge religion in public life based on two separate types of standing: (1) taxpayer standing, and (2) non-economic injury, such as alleged offense or feeling of exclusion. ''See Flast v. Cohen'' | + | In [[Establishment Clause]] cases, plaintiffs challenge religion in public life based on two separate types of standing: (1) taxpayer standing, and (2) non-economic injury, such as alleged offense or feeling of exclusion. ''See Flast v. Cohen'' and ''Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation''. |
[[Category:law]] | [[Category:law]] | ||
Revision as of 03:26, September 27, 2010
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.
| “ | To qualify for standing, a claimant must present an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the defendant's challenged behavior; and likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling. | ” |
Davis v. FEC, 128 S. Ct. 2759, 2768 (2008).
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).
Important Cases
Standing presents strong separation of powers problems when the plaintiffs seek to challenge administrative action. Critically, suing the executive branch, the home of most administrative agencies, can result in improper judicial interference in executive functions. 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
In Establishment Clause cases, plaintiffs challenge religion in public life based on two separate types of standing: (1) taxpayer standing, and (2) non-economic injury, such as alleged offense or feeling of exclusion. See Flast v. Cohen and Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation.
