Standing

Article III limits federal courts to deciding actual cases and controversies, and the Supreme Court has read that phrase to require that a plaintiff have standing to sue. In Frothingham v. Mellon in 1923, the Court held that a taxpayer could not challenge a federal spending program simply because she paid taxes, and the doctrine developed through the twentieth century. In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, decided June 12, 1992, the Court set out the modern three-part test.

A plaintiff must show an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent rather than speculative, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct, and that a favorable court decision is likely to redress it. Generalized grievances shared by all citizens, such as an interest in seeing the law obeyed, are not enough, and taxpayers generally lack standing to challenge federal spending, with a narrow exception for some religious establishment claims. Organizations may sue on behalf of members who would have standing, and states may sue to protect their own interests, as in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007.

Standing often decides whether courts reach the merits of major disputes. In 2023 the Court found that a state had standing to challenge student loan forgiveness, and in June 2024 it unanimously held that doctors opposed to an abortion drug lacked standing to challenge its approval. Supporters of strict standing rules say they keep courts from becoming forums for political disputes that belong to elected officials, while critics say the doctrine is applied inconsistently and can shield unlawful government action from any challenge.