The Doctrine of Standing

 

In sum, the doctrine of standing, or standing to sue, is a court-created “doctrine” which determines whether or not the court will hear a particular federal lawsuit. The courts have held the plaintiff in the lawsuit is responsible to prove his “standing to sue.” There is no legislative support nor regulation for this “doctrine” as is the case for most other court processes such as court rules of operation. Thus the terms, conditions and interpretations of the “doctrine” are entirely in the discretion of the court and therefore many times in the court’s history been altered, amended or subjugated for a specific court lawsuit. Using this “doctrine” the courts determine whether it has jurisdiction to decide the lawsuit in question.

 

As the “doctrine” is literally decided on a case by case basis, it is nearly impossible to describe the conditions by which standing is met as they may be altered at any time by the court. The classic standards are that usually advanced in legal papers discussing standing are: (1) that the injury alleged by the plaintiff is imminent; (2) that the alleged injury is “concrete and particularized” rather than a “general grievance;” (3) that it is “likely” rather than merely “speculative” that the alleged injury will be redressed by a favorable judgment. However the courts have at various times established several “prudential”  or gatekeeping rules which include “independent and adequate standing,” “mootness,” “ripeness,” “political question doctrine” and “prudential.”

 

More details regarding standing can be found at this link.