Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the "Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…[and] to Controversies…" (Section 2, Clause 1). This is commonly referred to the "case or controversy" requirement, thus limiting federal courts to hearing cases in which there is an actual dispute between interested parties. Furthermore, in order to bring such an action before a federal court, you must have what is commonly referred to as "standing."

Standing is a legal concept which means that a person has a solid interest in the action that is brought before the Court (i.e. a person needs standing to file a lawsuit which the Court will hear). In other words, if a person does not have standing then the Court will not hear that person’s case.

Next, we’ll break down the concept of standing into its three main components.

As previously mentioned, standing is the concept that a person has an actual stake in the outcome of the case. In order to demonstrate that a person has standing, he or she must show that three separate components can be met: (i) the injury component, (ii) the causation component, and the (iii) redressability component.

The injury component is a component that can be satisfied by demonstrating that a person has been or will immediately be directly and personally injured by some action of the government. There must be some argument by the party bringing suit that the government action is unlawful, such that is violates or affect’s that person’s rights as guaranteed to him or her under the U.S. Constitution, or under some federal law.

It is important to note that the injury must have already occurred, or it must be so imminent that it will occur almost at the mere moment that the alleged unlawful action takes place. The injury must be distinct, and one must be able to articluate clearly what that injury will be. Furthermore, there is absolutely no requirement that the injury be economic in nature.

As an example, if you are physically, emotionally, or psychologically injured, or suffer monetary damages in violation of federal or Constitutional law you may have standing to file a federal action. However, if your claim only deals with a state law issue, then you have no standing to file a federal claim (and would have to file your claim in your local state, county, or municipal court).

In addition to the injury component, an individual must satisfy the causation component. The causation component indicates that there must be a causal connection between the alleged unlawful government conduct and the injury suffered. To be more specific, you must be able to outline that the cause of the injury is somewhat traceable to the conduct of the government.

As an example, if you file a First Amendment freedom of speech violation against your local city government in federal court because a fellow citizen (who does not work for the government) restricted you from speaking about abortion on the city streets you would not have standing. Why? Because a local citizen who does not work for the government is not a representative of the government and therefore no state action exists. In other words, you can only sue the government if the government (or a representative of the government) is the actual actor. If the government is not the actor (like in this example), you may be able to file a private civil action against the individual in your local state, county, or municipal court.

Lastly, in order to have standing, a person must also satisfy the redressability component. The redressability component is satisfied by demonstrating that a decision that is favorable to the person bringing the suit before federal court would be capable of redressing the injury. In other words, by bringing such a matter to the Court’s attention, your grievance would be eliminated and relieved (e.g. you would receive money).

Next, we’ll look at some of the most common issues with respect to the legal concept of standing in the federal system.

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.

In this article, we’ve explored the legal concept of standing. Standing is the requirement that a person have a solid interest in the action that is brought before the Court. Absent a finding that standing exists, a person is not permitted to bring an action to the Court’s attention. This requirement aids in ensuring that our already over-worked federal court system is not clogged with cases that have no real grievances to eliminate.