Does History Defeat Standing Doctrine?
Woolhandler, Ann & Nelson, Caleb
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by10
- 2026K. B. v. Cobb County School District Ga. Ct. App.
- 2026In re: Express Scripts, Inc. 4th Cir.
- 2025Trump v. CASA, Inc. Revisions: 7/02/25 SCOTUS
- 2025In Re Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2025Wasserman v. Franklin County Ga.
- 2024KENNESTONE HOSPITAL, INC. v. EMORY UNIVERSITY Ga.
- 2024Paulette Barclift v. Keystone Credit Services LLC 3rd Cir.
- 2023Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer SCOTUS
- 2023Tommy Hanes David Calderwood, M.D. and Focus on America v. John Merrill, in his official capacity as Alabama Secretary of State, and Bill English, Wes Allen, Clay Crenshaw, Jeff Elrod, and Will Barfoot, in their official capacities as members of the Alabama Electronic Voting Committee Ala.
- 2021Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Becerra D.D.C.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
According to the Supreme Court, the Federal Constitution limits not only the types of matters that federal courts can adjudicate, but also the parties who can bring those matters before them. In particular, the Court has held that private citizens who have suffered no concrete private injury lack standing to ask federal courts to redress diffuse harms to the public at large. When such harms are justiciable at all, the proper party plaintiff is the public itself, represented by an authorized officer of the government. Although the Court claims historical support for these ideas, academic critics insist that the law of standing is a recent "invention" of federal judges.
Indeed, it is frequently said that "[t]here was no doctrine of standing prior to the middle of the twentieth century." According to this view, the forms of action did much of the work of standing, defining when a plaintiff had the type of injury that, together with the defendant's breach of duty, would support a claim for relief. But judges did not otherwise inquire into standing; a court would deal with standing-related concerns simply by asking "whether the matter before it fit one of the recognized forms of action." Only in the twentieth century, so the story goes, did a "distinctive body of standing doctrine" develop.