Standing and Other Limits on Judicial Review

Not everyone has the right to bring a case for review in court.  In order to successfully sue another party, be it an individual, a corporation, or an arm of the government (local, state or federal), the person suing has to show they have the right to file the lawsuit.  The easiest way to show this is to be the injured party. 

If you are parked at a stoplight, and I rear end you, you have been injured and thus have the right to sue me.  The doctrine that discusses the limits of those who can sue is known as standing.  There are three requirements for standing: there must be an injury in fact, the person you’re suing must have caused the injury, and the remedy you are seeking must be able to redress the injury you’ve suffered.  If any of these three are absent, you will not have standing, and the court will dismiss your case.

The reason for standing is two-fold.  There are both constitutional and prudential reasons that the Court requires standing.  Prudential reasons are those created by the Court because it believes that it is the best policy to limit standing in certain circumstances.  These can be changed or waived by the Court at any time.  Constitutional reasons are found in Article III and the Court is not free to ignore them.

Specifically, Article III of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear only “cases and controversies.”  Unlike some state Supreme Courts and other courts throughout the world, the Supreme Court cannot issue advisory opinions.  It requires that the issue before it be a genuine dispute between two parties.

In order to ensure that the issue gets a fair hearing, the Court wants to ensure that those who argue both sides have a genuine stake in the outcome, so that they will endeavor to make the best possible arguments in support of their side.  Thus, they limit those who are allowed to bring suit.  The cases in this portion of the readings deal with the limits on standing.

A few brief notes – in general, taxpayers may not sue merely on the basis of having paid taxes, because there is no way to trace your specific contribution to an allegedly improper purpose.  However, the Court has made some exceptions to this general doctrine.  Flast v. Cohen lays out those exceptions.

Additionally, an organization may sue on behalf of its members so long as at least one member would have the right to sue on their own behalf.  Both Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw rely on this sort of standing, although the Court is examining the components of those individual claims.

Finally, the readings this week cover two other prudential doctrines that limit the jurisdiction of the Court to hear cases.  These doctrines are ripeness and mootness.