Standing doctrine

In the earlier standing tutorial, we noted that Article III, § 2 of the Constitution limits jurisdiction “cases or controversies.”

The tutorial observed that being a "case or controversy" requires an invasion of a legally protected interest (a harm) that is

(a) concrete and particularized, and
(b)actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.

Clapper v. Amnesty Intl. USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013).

The Sandvig court uses different language. It says that

To have Article III standing, a plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.

The two formulations are consistent. An "injury in fact" requires an invasion of a legally protected interest (a harm) that is

(a) concrete and particularized, and
(b)actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.

Continue