Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/13-193_omq2.pdf
Page Number: 9

Cite as:  573 U. S. ____ (2014) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

therefore  determined  that  SBA’s  suit  was  not  ripe  for 
review,  and  that  its  analysis  as  to  SBA  compelled  the 
same conclusion with respect to COAST.

We  granted  certiorari,  571  U. S.  ___  (2014),  and  now 

reverse. 

III
 
A 

Article  III  of  the  Constitution  limits  the  jurisdiction  of 
federal  courts  to  “Cases”  and  “Controversies.”    U. S. 
Const., Art. III, §2.  The doctrine of standing gives mean-
ing  to  these  constitutional  limits  by  “identify[ing]  those 
disputes  which  are  appropriately  resolved  through  the 
judicial process.”5  Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 
555, 560 (1992).  “The law of Article III standing, which is 
built on separation-of-powers principles, serves to prevent 
the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of
the political branches.”  Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 
U. S.  ___,  ___,  (2013)  (slip  op.,  at  9).    To  establish  Article 
III standing, a plaintiff must show (1) an “injury in fact,” 
(2)  a  sufficient  “causal  connection  between  the  injury
and  the  conduct  complained  of,”  and  (3)  a  “likel[ihood]”
that the injury “will be redressed by a favorable decision.” 
Lujan,  supra,  at  560–561  (internal  quotation  marks
omitted).

This case concerns the injury-in-fact requirement, which
helps to ensure that the plaintiff has a “personal stake in
the  outcome  of  the  controversy.”  Warth  v.  Seldin,  422 
—————— 

5 The  doctrines  of  standing  and  ripeness  “originate”  from  the  same
Article  III  limitation.  DaimlerChrysler  Corp.  v.  Cuno,  547  U. S.  332, 
335  (2006).    As  the  parties  acknowledge,  the  Article  III  standing  and 
ripeness  issues  in  this  case  “boil  down  to  the  same  question.”    Med- 
Immune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U. S. 118, 128, n. 8 (2007); see Brief 
for  Petitioners  28;  Brief  for  Respondents  22.    Consistent  with  our 
practice  in  cases  like  Virginia  v.  American  Booksellers Assn.,  Inc.,  484 
U. S. 383, 392 (1988), and Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U. S. 289, 299, 
n. 11 (1979), we use the term “standing” in this opinion.