# What do you need for "Standing" to bring a court case? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 21, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-need-for-standing-to-bring-a-court-case/281018 "2004-12-21T19:17:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-need-for-standing-to-bring-a-court-case/281018/1 "2004-12-21T19:17:37Z")
I am a bit confused on just what it takes, in a court’s eyes, to be justified in bringing a case to court. I know to an extent someone has to be able to show they have “standing” such that a resident of Texas could not take Illinois to court over, say, a property tax issue in Illinois (assuming the Texan owns no property in Illinois). Where I get confused is in the many gray areas. Do I have to wait to be injured (physically or monetarily) before I can chellenge a given law? Or can I go to court proactively to try and get a law struck down before I am injured by it? What about organizations that bring suit? Organizations such as the NRA or ACLU (just to name two as an example). Do they need to find a plaintiff who was or is or would be affected unduly by a given law or can they bring suit on their own? I admit I am sort of bouncing around up there giving examples but hopefully the legal eagles here will figure what I am on about. If not just say so and I’ll try and be more specific. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-need-for-standing-to-bring-a-court-case/281018/2 "2004-12-21T19:22:25Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Where I get confused is in the many gray areas. Do I have to wait to be injured (physically or monetarily) before I can chellenge a given law? Or can I go to court proactively to try and get a law struck down before I am injured by it? IANAL, but I believe if you can show that you are adversely affected or harmed (not neccessarily physically) by the law and that it may violate the state or federal constitution, then you may have a case. However, you can’t simply decide that you don’t like red lights and therefore sue to bring down all traffic laws relating to red lights. > [@](#): > > What about organizations that bring suit? Organizations such as the NRA or ACLU (just to name two as an example). Do they need to find a plaintiff who was or is or would be affected unduly by a given law or can they bring suit on their own? IIRC, they need to find a plaintiff. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Ace309](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ace309/32/1050_2.png) [@Ace309](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ace309)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-need-for-standing-to-bring-a-court-case/281018/3 "2004-12-21T19:25:13Z")
It can be a fairly complex issue, depending on the case, and IANAL. Speaking very, very generally, there needs to be an injury to you (or, I believe, someone you have an interest in - eg, your child). If there isn’t an injury, the case isn’t yet “ripe.” Often, the ACLU doesn’t bring suit per se, but aids the person bringing the suit by providing council and filing amicus curiae (‘friend of the court’) briefs (which detail, in a sort of “pardon me while I butt in” fashion, reasons that the court should decide a particular way; the Bush Administration has filed at least one amicus brief recently, although I can’t remember in which case or cases). Hopefully someone who actually knows what they’re doing will stop in and clear some of this up for you. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-need-for-standing-to-bring-a-court-case/281018/4 "2004-12-21T20:03:26Z")
You have to show “actual or prospective injury” to have standing. “Injury” is of course a term of art – and what **zev** says about the _res_ about which you are bringing suit adversely affecting you in some way is pretty close to the actual standard definition. In other words, say you’re opposed to mandatory recital of the Pledge of Allegiance in the local schools. Just because you feel it’s wrong does not give you standing. But if you’re the parent of a child who is being compelled to recite it, you have standing, in your child’s behalf as the person with custody over that child. (This was part of the problem with the Newdow case – he was a non-custodial parent.) If a road is being built where you don’t want it to be, you don’t automatically have standing. But if you own a store and can show that the new road was designed to favor a local official who voted for the road and who owns a store in competition with you which is adjacent to the new road, you are seeing “prospective injury” and would have standing to challenge the construction of the road. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-need-for-standing-to-bring-a-court-case/281018/5 "2004-12-21T20:27:33Z")
My Bar exam recall may be fuzzy, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. To have standing a plaintiff must have been harmed or must be subject to an imminent threat of harm. An organization may have standing if the issue being litigated serves the purpose of the organization. As a fictional example, the Citizens Against Proposition 13, formed to fight Proposition 13, may have standing to sue re the constitutionality of Proposition 13. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-need-for-standing-to-bring-a-court-case/281018/6 "2004-12-21T20:53:11Z")
However, one can seek a declaratory judgment even though there has been no actual wrong or any wrong immediately threatened. The court determines a question of law without ordering anything to be done. It must deal with a real dispute of a real fact. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-need-for-standing-to-bring-a-court-case/281018/7 "2004-12-21T20:57:11Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > To have standing a plaintiff must have been harmed or must be subject to an imminent threat of harm. Necessary but not sufficient. Not only must P. be harmed or subject to imminent threat of harm, that harm must be traceable to the alleged transgression and the relief sought must be fairly said to address this harm. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-need-for-standing-to-bring-a-court-case/281018/8 "2004-12-21T21:29:55Z")
The short answer in an injury that is actual or imminent, particlarized to the plaintiff, caused by the defendant, that is within the Court’s power to redress. The first requirement of federal standing, as stated by **zev** , **Whack-a-mole** , and **Poly** and others on preview, is injury, or more specifically injury in fact, an injury that is actual or imminent, not merely hypothetical or conjectural. “Injury in fact” is a constitutional requirement, and Congress can’t do away with it by legislating, say, “if so-and-so violates this law and illegally dumps toxic waste, any U.S. citizen can sue him.” The case or controversy requirement mandates that the litigating citizen still show how he is actually injured by the dumping. The next constitutional limitation on standing is that your injury must actually be caused by the defendant. This is not always as simple as it sounds. For example, in _Allen v. Wright_, parents of black schoolchildren claimed that their children were not getting a good education because the IRS was not enforcing laws that would deny tax-free status to schools that racially discriminated. The Court said that the link between the governement’s conduct and the injury complained was too distant. The last constitutional requirement is redressability; the Court must have the power to do something to eliminate the harm to the plaintiff. For example, I can’t challenge tax breaks given to hospitals that won’t provide me indigent medical care unless I can show that I would be receiving it if the tax breaks were not provided. The Court doesn’t have the power to take action that will allieviate my injury, so I have no standing. One sort of quasi-exception to this rule is when the injury is of a sort that is “capable of repitition but evading review.” For example, if you are challenging your state’s prohibition on abortion, you will likely have already had your child by the time the case gets to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a rare circumstance like this that could repeat itself over and over, effectively denying any litigant from ever bringing suit, the Court will find standing, even though in this one instance redressability is arguably moot. In addition to constitutional limitations on standing, there are also prudential limitations created by the judiciary. These are cases where they could hear the case unless (1) instructed by Congress or (2) there’s a really good reason to. One prudential limitation is against the “generalized grievance,” especially as it relates to taxpayers. You must have some particularized injury that sets you apart from the general populace, and not just some generalized complaint that any citizen would have that the government is acting unconstitutionally. For example, you would have standing to litigate the amount of taxes you personally owe, but not standing to litigate that Congress is unconstitutionally spending your taxes in Iraq. Taxpayers have virtually only one instance in which they can challenge the unconstitutional use of their taxes – when they are challenging the aid to religious organizations under the Establishment Clause. Another prudential limitation is when a third party is asserting the rights of others. This will be allowed when a special relationship exists between the party and the non-party would have difficulty asserting his/her/its own rights. For example, the NAACP was allowed to sue on behalf of its individual members in a suit challenging a state law that required disclosure of its membership. If the members had sued individually, they would have revealed their identities, thus making the lawsuit moot. Which brings up organizational standing. Generally, an organization can sue when it has suffered harm as an organization. In some instances, however, the organization may also sue on behalf of its individual members if both have been injured in a manner related to the purpose of the organization, so long as the individual participation of the members in the lawsuit is not required. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-need-for-standing-to-bring-a-court-case/281018/9 "2004-12-21T21:32:26Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > In addition to constitutional limitations on standing, there are also prudential limitations created by the judiciary. These are cases where they could hear the case unless (1) instructed by Congress or (2) there’s a really good reason to. Sorry, that should read: “In addition to constitutional limitations on standing, there are also prudential limitations created by the judiciary. These are cases where they could hear the case **but won’t** unless (1) instructed by Congress or (2) there’s a really good reason to.” ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-need-for-standing-to-bring-a-court-case/281018/10 "2004-12-21T22:07:43Z")
The A.C.L.U. often does bring suit in its own name, when it has standing. There are many cases in which a federal statute, for example, that unconstitutionally limits protected speech can harm just about anyone, including a fictional person like the A.C.L.U. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-need-for-standing-to-bring-a-court-case/281018/11 "2004-12-21T22:23:18Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > “Injury in fact” is a constitutional requirement, and Congress can’t do away with it by legislating, say, “if so-and-so violates this law and illegally dumps toxic waste, any U.S. citizen can sue him.” The case or controversy requirement mandates that the litigating citizen still show how he is actually injured by the dumping. I am curious about this. Could I not make a claim that dumping of toxic waste somewhere else is still of concern to me? As a citizen should I be able to take to task someone messing up the environment even if I have no immediate connection to that area? Let me put it another way in a hypothetical. Say someone wants to cut down all the giant redwood tress in California. I live in Chicago but can’t I make a case that those redwoods are unique (only growing there and nowhere else in the world) and that despite not living there I consider them as a part of some of the unique things this country has to offer? If someone did want to cut them all down does only a person living next to some have standing to bring those people to court? If no such people exist who could have standing to try and have it stopped? Or is the only form of redress here to go to your state (or federal) legislators and try to get them to do something about it? Mind you the above is pure hypothetical and not an attempt to sneak in a debate on forestry practices. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-you-need-for-standing-to-bring-a-court-case/281018/12 "2004-12-21T23:14:41Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I am curious about this. Could I not make a claim that dumping of toxic waste somewhere else is still of concern to me? As a citizen should I be able to take to task someone messing up the environment even if I have no immediate connection to that area? > > Let me put it another way in a hypothetical. Say someone wants to cut down all the giant redwood tress in California. I live in Chicago but can’t I make a case that those redwoods are unique (only growing there and nowhere else in the world) and that despite not living there I consider them as a part of some of the unique things this country has to offer? If someone did want to cut them all down does only a person living next to some have standing to bring those people to court? If no such people exist who could have standing to try and have it stopped? Or is the only form of redress here to go to your state (or federal) legislators and try to get them to do something about it? > > Mind you the above is pure hypothetical and not an attempt to sneak in a debate on forestry practices. Under the circumstances you describe, it would be hard for you personally to establish standing. Justice Scalia wrote an opinion in _Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,_ 504 U.S. 555 (1992), that more or less rejected exactly this and made environmental cases harder to bring. The Endangered Species Act required federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that any action authorized didn’t jeopardize any endangered species. Then Secretary of the Interior Lujan issued a rule that interpreted the act to only apply to the U.S. or the high seas. The plaintiffs sued, saying that U.S. funded projects authorized by the rule would damage endangered species in Sri Lanka. Scalia said that since none of the researchers who brought suit had any plans to return there in the near future, none could complain of an actual or imminent injury: > [@](#): > > Besides relying upon the Kelly and Skilbred affidavits, respondents propose a series of novel standing theories. The first, inelegantly styled “ecosystem nexus,” proposes that any person who uses any part of a “contiguous ecosystem” adversely affected by a funded activity has standing even if the activity is located a great distance away. To say that the Act protects ecosystems is not to say that the Act creates (if it were possible) rights of action in persons who have not been injured in fact, that is, persons who use portions of an ecosystem not perceptibly affected by the unlawful action in question. > > Respondents’ other theories are called, alas, the “animal nexus” approach, whereby anyone who has an interest in studying or seeing the endangered animals anywhere on the globe has standing; and the “vocational nexus” approach, under which anyone with a professional interest in such animals can sue. Under these theories, anyone who goes to see Asian elephants in the Bronx Zoo, and anyone who is a keeper of Asian elephants in the Bronx Zoo, has standing to sue because the Director of Agency for International Development did not consult with the Secretary regarding the AID-funded project in Sri Lanka. This is beyond all reason. Standing is not “an ingenious academic exercise in the conceivable,” but, as we have said, requires, at the summary judgment stage, a factual showing of perceptible harm. It is clear that the person who observes or works with a particular animal threatened by a federal decision is facing perceptible harm, since the very subject of his interest will no longer exist. It is even plausible - though it goes to the outermost limit of plausibility - to think that a person who observes or works with animals of a particular species in the very area of the world where that species is threatened by a federal decision is facing such harm, since some animals that might have been the subject of his interest will no longer exist. It goes beyond the limit, however, and into pure speculation and fantasy, to say that anyone who observes or works with an endangered species, anywhere in the world, is appreciably harmed by a single project affecting some portion of that species with which he has no more specific connection. [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lujan.html](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lujan.html)