Also known as: standing doctrine · standing · locus standi
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional doctrine requiring a plaintiff to show a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Damian Decker sued a federal agency alleging that mental-health policies injured him and all citizens equally by failing to fund treatment programs. He could not identify any personal concrete harm distinct from the public at large. The court dismissed for lack of standing because no particularized injury was shown.
Diane Dawson sued a federal regulator claiming that lax oversight of inspectors caused her financial loss on a home purchase. She demonstrated a concrete personal injury traceable to the agency's inaction. The court found standing because a favorable ruling would likely redress the harm through damages.
Dakota Industries challenged a federal permitting decision affecting its business operations. The company alleged only a general policy disagreement shared by the industry. The court held that standing was absent because no concrete and particularized injury to the plaintiff was established.
Devon Drake sued federal officials whose policy allegedly caused his loss of professional license. Evidence showed the harm was directly traceable to the defendants' conduct. The court recognized standing because all three elements, including causation, were satisfied.
Duffy Construction alleged that a federal rule change would cause it direct competitive injury. The company showed that invalidating the rule would likely remedy its harm. The court upheld standing after confirming a redressable personal stake.
Dolores Diaz and other members of an advocacy group sued federal agencies over plans affecting overseas wildlife habitats. They alleged future harm from potential visits but could not show imminent injury to themselves. The court dismissed the action for lack of standing because no plaintiff demonstrated a redressable personal stake.
A plaintiff must show a concrete and particularized injury, causation linking the injury to the defendant's conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision will redress the injury.
Supporting sources
No. The injury must be particularized to the plaintiff rather than a diffuse harm common to the public at large.
Supporting sources
Yes. A plaintiff must maintain a personal interest throughout the litigation. If the case becomes moot, standing effectively disappears.
Supporting sources
…District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to which the action was referred, held that the Does and Hallford had no standing to sue, but that Roe did have standing, and that the Texas abortion laws were unconstitutional. The court declared the laws void but refused to issue an injunction against their…