The first justiciability question is about the plaintiff. Many people may care about a law or a government action. Only some may sue over it. The doctrine that sorts them is standing.
Key idea
To have standing a plaintiff must show (1) an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized and actual or imminent; (2) causation: the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct; and (3) redressability: a favorable ruling is likely to fix it. (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 1992.)
Why it works
Standing ties a lawsuit to a person with a personal stake, which keeps courts deciding concrete disputes rather than policy questions in the abstract. A harm shared equally by every citizen, such as an interest in the government obeying the law, is a generalized grievance; the remedy for it lies with voters and their representatives. So, as a rule, being a federal taxpayer does not by itself give standing to challenge how money is spent (the Court has recognized only a narrow exception for some religion-clause claims). The test has three parts because each closes a gap: the plaintiff must be hurt, by this defendant, in a way the court can help. In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016) the Court held that the injury must be concrete as well as particularized: a bare procedural violation of a statute, divorced from any real harm, is not enough.
Worked example: Lujan
Members of wildlife groups said they had visited habitats of endangered species abroad and intended to return "someday." They challenged a rule that limited a federal consultation duty to actions in the United States. Did they have standing?
- Injury in fact must be actual or imminent.
- "Someday" intentions, without concrete plans, are not imminent.
- The Court (7–2 in the judgment) held they lacked standing.
Answer: No: no imminent injury in fact.
Worked example: Which element fails?
A driver sues a car maker, alleging that the maker's ad campaign raised gas prices nationwide, so she pays more at the pump. Assume she does pay more. Which element is weakest?
- Injury: higher prices are concrete and personal. Present.
- Causation: gas prices depend on many independent actors (producers, markets, sellers). Tracing her higher price to one company's ads is speculative.
- Redressability falls with it: stopping the ads would not likely lower her price.
Answer: Causation (and so redressability).
Common mistake
Thinking caring deeply about an issue gives standing. A general interest shared by all citizens is not enough, however sincere or strong; the plaintiff needs a personal, concrete injury. Check each element against the plaintiff's own situation: what happened to this person, caused by this defendant, fixable by this court?
This is an educational course, not legal advice.