The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

“In law, Standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have by demonstrating to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:

• The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the "something to lose" doctrine, in which the party has Standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
• The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law. This is known as the "chilling effects" doctrine.
• The party is granted automatic Standing by act of law. Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows the plaintiff to receive attorney's fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.

In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless they can demonstrate that they are or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality.”

The doctrine of Legal Standing is important in that is said to vindicate the separation of powers guaranteed by the structure of the Constitution. But “separation of powers” is not monolithic, and the Supreme Court has used Standing doctrine to promote at least three separation-of-powers functions for the courts: (1) hearing only cases possessing sufficient concrete adversity to make them susceptible of judicial resolution; (2) avoiding questions better answered by the political branches; and (3) resisting Congress’s use of citizen suits—and therefore Congress’s conscription of the courts—to monitor the compliance of the executive branch with the law.

The standing doctrine is derived from the U.S. Constitution's Article III provision that federal courts have the power to hear "cases" arising under federal law and "controversies" involving certain types of parties. In the most fundamental application of the philosophy of judicial restraint, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to forbid the rendering of advisory opinions.

Once a federal court determines that a real case or controversy exists, it must then ascertain whether the parties to the litigation have standing. The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of Standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong.

Legal Standing is also important as it limits who may file a lawsuit, thus reducing the caseload of the courts to issues of direct harm to the parties involved in the lawsuit. Without Legal Standing, anybody could institute a lawsuit for any reason they deem that impacts themselves. 

However, the doctrine of Legal Standing has the issue of its importance as it relates to Constitutional issues. Many times, the courts have rejected lawsuits on Constitutional issues based on Legal Standing. In many cases, they are right to do so, but in some cases, they are wrong to do so. If the government has violated our Constitutional Rights and/or exceeded its powers, then all people are harmed by the government's actions. They, therefore, should have the Standing to challenge government actions based on Constitutional issues. The question then becomes what an appropriate challenge is and how to limit the lawsuits to substantial versus frivolous lawsuits.

As the doctrine of Legal Standing is not specified within the Constitution, it has been formulated by the Courts and in some cases by laws passed by Congress. As such, I believe that Congress has the ability, duty, and responsibility to review and supplement the courts' rules of Legal Standing. I would suggest that the President and Vice President of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, the Majority and Minority leaders of the House of Representatives of the United States, all Senators of the United States, a State Governor, or a State Attorney General be given Legal Standing to challenge any government laws and actions that they deem Unconstitutional.

This would limit the number of persons to two hundred and six persons who would automatically have Legal Standing to challenge the constitutionality of laws and government actions. All other persons who wish to institute a lawsuit on constitutional grounds would be subject to the current principles of Legal Standing. If the persons with automatic Standing should institute lawsuits that are frivolous, then they would be subject to the displeasure of their electorate and could be voted out of office by their constituents. This would, hopefully, limit the number of such lawsuits. The courts would have the responsibility to determine if a stay of the laws or government actions is necessary, or if the laws and government actions may proceed apace until the resolution of the lawsuit (a stay action is a judge ordering or ruling, etc., that stops a particular decision from being used or a particular action from happening).

The reason for the inclusion of State Governors and State Attorney Generals is rooted in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states:

Consequently, the States have a duty and responsibility to assure that their rights are not being unconstitutional infringed upon, and they need Legal Standing to institute lawsuits to challenge laws or governmental actions that they believe infringe upon their rights.

Given that many Judges and Justices are utilizing Legal Standing to reject Constitutional challenges to avoid ruling on contentious constitutional issues, I believe that this change to Legal standing principles needs to be implemented. All Judges and Justices need to remember that their primary duty and responsibility is the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, Legal Standing is subordinate to Constitutional issues and should not be utilized to avoid constitutional issues by the courts.