Black-letter propositions
- 01
An organization may sue for itself or for members who have standing when the interests are germane and individual participation is unnecessary.
- 02
A plaintiff generally asserts personal rights, but third-party standing may exist for a close relationship plus hindrance or overbreadth in speech cases.
- 03
Taxpayer and citizen status ordinarily do not create standing; narrow Establishment Clause taxpayer doctrine is limited.
- 04
Requested prospective relief requires a real likelihood of future injury, not only a past wrong.
Use this attack sequence under time
Frame the issue
Identify each plaintiff and each requested remedy.
Resolve the next checkpoint
State injury, causation, and redressability separately.
Resolve the next checkpoint
For injunctions, identify threatened future injury.
Finish the conclusion
If asserting another's rights, test relationship and hindrance.
Common wrong turns
- Merits strength does not cure standing.
- Statutory authorization cannot eliminate Article III injury.
- A generalized grievance about government illegality is not concrete injury.
Worked example
A person once subjected to an unlawful chokehold seeks an injunction but alleges no realistic chance of another encounter.
Past injury may support damages but not necessarily prospective relief. The plaintiff must show a real and immediate threat of recurrence for an injunction.
Practice this topic
The Article III limit and the standing test
Article III, Section 2 extends the judicial power to cases and controversies of the kinds it lists. Cornell's Legal Information Institute says standing is the capacity of a party to bring a lawsuit and requires a sufficient connection to and harm from the challenged law or action. Federal courts have constitutional authority only to resolve actual disputes, so a lawsuit cannot be brought simply because a person is displeased with a government action.
Cornell states the three-part test from Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. The plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact, meaning a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct at issue. And it must be likely, not speculative, that a favorable decision will redress the injury.
State courts and how to apply the test
Cornell adds that a state's own law determines what counts as standing in that state's courts, and those rules typically require direct injury that is redressable. In federal court, apply the three elements to the named plaintiff first, and treat the organizational or third-party theory as a way of supplying those elements, not as a replacement for them.
Write the injury, the cause and the remedy as separate sentences, since a missing link is what usually defeats standing.
Organizational and third-party theories are variations on these elements, so check how your course states them. Cornell's summary describes the standing test in terms of the party's own connection to and harm from the challenged action, which is the place to start whichever theory is offered.
Frequently asked questions
What is the controlling rule for standing, organizational standing, and third-party rights?+
Article III standing is remedy specific and requires concrete injury, traceability, and likely redressability at every stage.
How should I analyze standing, organizational standing, and third-party rights on the bar exam?+
Identify each plaintiff and each requested remedy. State injury, causation, and redressability separately. For injunctions, identify threatened future injury.
What are the three elements of federal standing?+
Injury in fact that is concrete, particularized and actual or imminent, a causal connection to the challenged conduct, and redressability by a favorable decision.
What does injury in fact require?+
A legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, according to Cornell's description of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife.
What is redressability on the bar exam?+
A likelihood, not a speculative possibility, that a favorable decision will redress the injury, which is the third element of the Lujan standing test.
Where does the standing limit come from?+
Article III's case-or-controversy requirement, since federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes and not to review every disagreement with government action.
Do state courts use the same standing test?+
Not necessarily. A state's statutes and law determine standing in that state's courts, and they typically require direct, redressable injury.
Primary sources
Cornell LII Wex: standing↗Cornell LII: U.S. Constitution, Article III↗Governing text for standing, organizational standing, and third-party rights
Constitution of the United States, full text (National Archives) ↗