Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-281_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

Cite as:  587 U. S. ____ (2019) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

I 
  To reach the merits of a case, an Article III court must 
have  jurisdiction.    “One  essential  aspect  of  this  require-
ment  is  that  any  person  invoking  the  power  of  a  federal 
court must demonstrate standing to do so.”  Hollingsworth 
v. Perry, 570 U. S. 693, 704 (2013).  The three elements of 
standing, this Court has reiterated, are (1) a concrete and 
particularized  injury,  that  (2)  is  fairly  traceable  to  the 
challenged  conduct,  and  (3)  is  likely  to  be  redressed  by  a 
favorable  decision.    Ibid.  (citing  Lujan  v.  Defenders  of 
Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992)).  Although rulings 
on  standing  often  turn  on  a  plaintiff ’s  stake  in  initially 
filing  suit,  “Article  III  demands  that  an  ‘actual  contro- 
versy’  persist  throughout  all  stages  of  litigation.”    Hol-
lingsworth,  570  U. S.,  at  705  (quoting  Already,  LLC  v. 
Nike,  Inc.,  568  U. S.  85,  90–91  (2013)).    The  standing 
requirement  therefore  “must  be  met  by  persons  seeking 
appellate  review,  just  as  it  must  be  met  by  persons  ap-
pearing in courts of first instance.”  Arizonans for Official 
English v. Arizona, 520 U. S. 43, 64 (1997).  As a jurisdic-
tional  requirement,  standing  to  litigate  cannot  be  waived 
or  forfeited.    And  when  standing  is  questioned  by  a  court 
or  an  opposing  party,  the  litigant  invoking  the  court’s 
jurisdiction must do more than simply allege a nonobvious 
harm.  See Wittman v. Personhuballah, 578 U. S. ___, ___–
___ (2016) (slip op., at 5–6).  To cross the standing thresh-
old,  the  litigant  must  explain  how  the  elements  essential 
to standing are met. 
  Before the District Court, the House participated in both 
bench  trials  as  an  intervenor  in  support  of  the  State  De-
fendants.  And in the prior appeal to this Court, the House 
participated as an appellee.  Because neither role entailed 

—————— 

advanced  in  this  appeal.    The  House’s  claim  to  standing  to  pursue  an 
appeal  from  the  remedial  order  fares  no  better  than  its  assertion  of 
standing here.  See post, p. ___.