Standing

t Background

n This prohibiting of advisory opinions is the source of the law of standing.

n In order to be able to compel judicial decision, a litigant must have a legally cognizable stake in the controversy. If a federal court decision will not redress an injury, either because what is complained of is not an injury or because the decision will have no effect, then the decision would be an advisory opinion.

n Standing doctrine goes back to Marshall’s claim that individual rights and nothing else is the SCt’s business:

n “Although the requirements of standing must be met in every lawsuit filed in federal court, the issue frequently arises in cases presenting important constitutional and public law statutory questions. As such, standing is crucial in defining the scope of judicial protection of constitutional rights. Because standing is jurisdictional, federal courts can raise it on their own and it may be challenged at any point in the federal court proceedings.” (Erwin Chermerinsky)

t Standing Requirements. Standing has constitutional and prudential components which must be satisfied to get into any federal court (98-99). Prudential components can be overruled by statute; constitutional components cannot be overruled by statute.

n Constitutional

(a) P must allege that he has suffered or imminently will suffer an injury

(b) P must allege that injury is fairly traceable to D’s conduct,

(c) P must allege that a favorable decision is likely to redress the injury.

n Prudential modality

(a) P must assert own rights, not those of third parties,

(b) Court won’t adjudicate abstract questions or generalized grievances,

(c) P’s complaint must fall within the legally protected zone of interests.

Date: 2015-01-02; view: 881