Also known as: Article 3 standing requirements · article III standing · constitutional standing · Article III standing
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The constitutional requirements limiting federal judicial power to actual cases or controversies. A plaintiff must demonstrate an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Generalized grievances shared by all citizens and bare statutory violations without real-world harm fail to satisfy these requirements.
Aaron Adams, a taxpayer, sued the federal government claiming that an agency violated a statute by failing to follow required procedures in issuing permits. Adams identified no personal harm beyond his interest in lawful government action. The court dismissed the suit because the asserted injury was a generalized grievance shared equally by all citizens.
Alfred Ashford sued a data broker after discovering an error in his profile that violated a federal accuracy statute. Ashford alleged no lost opportunities, financial loss, or material risk of misuse. The court held that the statutory violation alone did not supply the concrete injury required for standing.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Aurora Biotech discharged pollutants into a river used by members of an environmental group for recreation. The members submitted affidavits showing concrete plans to visit the river and documented harm to their aesthetic interests. The court found the injury sufficiently particularized and imminent to support standing.
Atlas Ventures sued a manufacturer for past reporting violations under an environmental statute. The company sought only civil penalties payable to the government and identified no ongoing harm or redressable injury to itself. The court dismissed the action for lack of redressability.
The state of Massachusetts sued a federal agency for failing to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. The state showed that rising sea levels threatened its coastal property and that regulation would reduce those emissions. The court held that the state's particularized injury satisfied standing.
The City of New York challenged the President's cancellation of a spending provision that would have provided the city with federal funds. The cancellation directly reduced the city's expected revenue and altered its budget planning. The court found the city's concrete fiscal injury sufficient for standing.
No. Article III requires an injury in fact that is both particularized and concrete. A plaintiff cannot rely solely on the fact that a statute was violated. There must be some actual or realistically threatened harm.
Supporting sources
A generalized grievance shared in substantially equal measure by all citizens, such as an interest in having the government follow the law, does not satisfy Article III. Congress cannot create standing by authorizing citizen suits where no concrete and particularized injury exists.
Supporting sources
The plaintiff must allege an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Statutory violations may suffice only when they create a real risk of harm beyond a purely procedural breach.
Supporting sources
…anywhere outside the context of environmental claims. As I understand it, environmental plaintiffs are under no special constitutional standing disabilities. Like other plaintiffs, they need show only that the action they challenge has injured them, without necessarily showing they happened to be physically near the location of the…