Standing in Federal Court

Standing in Federal Court

Standing is a threshold requirement that a party must meet in order to maintain a lawsuit or to support that party’s participation in the case. In a previous article, we examined standing as applied under Florida law. In this article, we examine standing in Federal court.

The United States Supreme Court recently addressed standing in Federal court in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, where a group of doctors challenged the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. Ultimately, the Court held, “[u]nder Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue.” FDA v. All. for Hippocratic Med., Nos. 23-235, 23-236, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2604, at *9 (June 13, 2024).

Article III

“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties … to controversies between two or more states; between a state and citizens of another state; between citizens of different states … and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.” U.S. Const., art. III, § 2.

“Article III standing is a bedrock constitutional requirement ….” FDA, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2604, at *15 (quotation omitted). “Standing is ‘built on a single basic idea—the idea of separation of powers.’” Id. (quotation omitted). “Article III of the Constitution confines the jurisdiction of federal courts to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Id.

“The case or controversy requirement limits the role of the Federal Judiciary in our system of separated powers.” FDA, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2604, at *15. “For a plaintiff to get in the federal courthouse door and obtain a judicial determination of what the governing law is, the plaintiff cannot be a mere bystander, but instead must have a ‘personal stake’ in the dispute.” Id. at *16 (quotation omitted).

To establish standing in Federal court “a plaintiff must demonstrate (i) that she has suffered or likely will suffer an injury in fact, (ii) that the injury likely was caused or will would be redressed by the requested judicial relief.” FDA, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2604, at *17–18 (citations omitted). “Those specific standing requirements constitute ‘an essential and unchanging part of the case-or controversy requirement of Article III.’” Id. at *18 (quotation omitted).

Injury in Fact

The first element of standing in Federal court is “injury in fact.” FDA, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2604, at *18. “An injury in fact must be ‘concrete,’ meaning that it must be real and not abstract.” Id. (citation omitted). “The injury also must be particularized; the injury must affect ‘the plaintiff in a personal and individual way’ and not be a generalized grievance.” Id. (quotation omitted).

“An injury in fact can be a physical injury, a monetary injury, an injury to one’s property, or an injury to one’s constitutional rights, to take just a few common examples.” FDA, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2604, at *18. “Moreover, the injury must be actual or imminent, not speculative—meaning that the injury must have already occurred or be likely to occur soon.” Id. at *18–19 (citation omitted).

“The injury in fact requirement prevents the federal courts from becoming a ‘vehicle for the vindication of the value interests of concerned bystanders.’” FDA, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2604, at *19 (quotation omitted). “An Article III court is not a legislative assembly, a town square, or a faculty lounge.” Id. “In sum, to sue in federal court, a plaintiff must show that he or she has suffered or likely will suffer an injury in fact.” Id. at *20.

Causation and Redressability

The second element of standing in Federal court is “causation.” FDA, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2604, at *20. “The plaintiff must also establish that the plaintiff’s injury likely was caused or likely will be caused by the defendant’s conduct.” Id. “The causation requirement is central to Article III standing.” Id. at *22. “Like the injury in fact requirement, the causation requirement screens out plaintiffs who were not injured by the defendant’s action.” Id.

The third element of standing in Federal court is “redressability,” which means “it is ‘likely’ and not ‘merely speculative’ that the plaintiff’s injury will be remedied by the relief plaintiff seeks in bringing suit.” Sprint Communs. Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs., 554 U.S. 269, 273–74 (2008) (quotation omitted).

“The second and third standing requirements—causation and redressability—are often ‘flip sides of the same coin.’” FDA, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2604, at *18 (quotation omitted). “If a defendant’s action causes an injury, enjoining the action or awarding damages for the action will typically redress that injury. So the two key questions in most standing disputes are injury in fact and causation.” Id.