As with any legal concept, the notion of standing is fraught with issues that complicate the simplicity of the idea. In this section, we’ll look at some of the most common issues related to the scheme of standing.

First, the fact that a person is a U.S. citizen does not satisfy the standing requirement. Absent any other concrete investment in the matter, the fact that you are affected as a U.S. citizen by some government conduct that potentially violates your federal rights is not enough to satisfy the standing requirement. As previously indicated, your injury must be distinct, and the "citizenship" claim is a claim that is much too abstract and generalized.

Second, the fact that you are a taxpaying citizen does not satisfy the requirement of standing. Although you have a direct stake in bringing suit with respect to your own individual tax bill, you have no general standing to challenge how the federal government spends your tax dollars. The only exception to this otherwise too generalized concept is when the federal government chooses to spend your tax dollars to aid in furthering a specific religious group. This would be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Third, a person does not have standing to assert the rights of other individuals unless this person has standing in his or her own right. What exactly does this mean? If you have a special relationship with a third party, or if there would be some difficulty for the third party to assert his or her own rights, then a different individual who meets the three components of standing on his or her own could assert the rights of the third party.

Let’s use a hypothetical to flesh this issue out. Let’s say that you are a doctor, and you perform abortions for women who wish to terminate their pregnancies. Furthermore, let’s assume that the federal government creates a law that regulates and restricts abortions in an unduly burdensome and overly restrictive way. As a doctor who is adversely affected by such a law, you could assert the rights of one of your patients. In this scenario, you have a special relationship with your patient such that an assertion of your patient’s rights would be appropriate.

Fourth, if the person in question is actually an organization, you as an organization may have standing on behalf of your members. In order to bring suit before the government as an organization, you must show that there is an injury to the members such that they could litigate the matter on their own behalf. Furthermore, an organization must show that the injury that occurs is directly related to the main purpose of the organization itself. Finally, in order to have standing, the organization must show that participation by its members on an individual basis is not warranted or required.

Fifth, a person may meet the components of standing when enforcing a federal statute if he or she is within the "zone of interests" protected by that statute or provision. Additionally, a person may have standing when he or she suffers an injury that is the kind of injury that the federal government expected to be addressed under the statute. This issue is unclear and vague, and needs further clarification by the U.S. Supreme Court to establish more uniformity in cases where individuals bring suit to enforce federal statutes or provisions.

Finally, let’s wrap this article up by going over a few key points.