🇺🇸
Constitutional Law • Justiciability Doctrines
CONLAW#002
Legal Definition
Standing is the question of whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring the matter to the court for adjudication. There are 3 elements for proper standing: (1) injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability.
Plain English Explanation
Standing is like a test that the court does to make sure the person who is asking for help from the court is the right person to do so. The court wants to make sure that the person who is asking for help has been hurt by the problem they want the court to fix.
There are three things the court looks at to decide if someone is the right person to ask for help. First, the person must have been hurt by the problem, this is called injury in fact. Second, the problem must have been caused by the person or group they want the court to help them against, this is called causation. And third, the court must be able to fix the problem, this is called redressability.
In simple terms, standing is like a test to make sure the right person is asking the court for help, and that the court can fix the problem that has hurt them.
There are three things the court looks at to decide if someone is the right person to ask for help. First, the person must have been hurt by the problem, this is called injury in fact. Second, the problem must have been caused by the person or group they want the court to help them against, this is called causation. And third, the court must be able to fix the problem, this is called redressability.
In simple terms, standing is like a test to make sure the right person is asking the court for help, and that the court can fix the problem that has hurt them.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob lives near a factory that recently started emitting smoke. Bob develops respiratory problems and decides to sue the factory. Sam, who lives in another city, also decides to join the lawsuit, claiming he is worried about the pollution affecting his area in the future. Result: Bob has standing because: (1) Injury in Fact: Bob has suffered an actual injury (respiratory problems) that is concrete and particularized, not just hypothetical. (2) Causation: The injury is directly linked to the factory’s emissions, as they are the likely cause of his respiratory issues. (3) Redressability: A court ruling against the factory could stop the emissions, potentially improving Bob’s health, thus redressing the harm. Sam does not have standing because: (1) Injury in Fact: Sam has not suffered any actual injury; his claim is based on speculative future harm. (2) Causation: Since there is no actual injury, causation cannot be established. (3) Redressability: Even if the court ruled against the factory, it wouldn’t redress any harm to Sam, as he hasn’t been harmed yet.
