Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-309_4f15.pdf
Page Number: 6

4 

CARNEY v. ADAMS 

Opinion of the Court 

Governor Carney then filed a petition for a writ of certio-
rari.  He asked us to consider, first, whether the major party 
requirement is constitutional and, then, if it is not, whether 
it is severable from the bare majority requirement.  Pet. for 
Cert. i.  We granted his petition but asked that the parties 
first  address  the  question  whether  Adams  has  demon-
strated Article III standing to bring this lawsuit. 

II 
A 
This case begins and ends with standing.  The Constitu-
tion grants Article III courts the power to decide “Cases” or 
“Controversies.”  Art. III, §2.  We have long understood that
constitutional phrase to require that a case embody a gen-
uine, live dispute between adverse parties, thereby prevent-
ing the federal courts from issuing advisory opinions.  See 
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 96–97 (1968); Coleman v. Mil-
ler,  307  U. S.  433,  460  (1939)  (opinion  of  Frankfurter,  J.) 
(“[I]t was not for courts to pass upon . . . abstract, intellec-
tual problems but only if a concrete, living contest between 
adversaries  called  for  the  arbitrament  of  law”).  The  doc-
trine of standing implements this requirement by insisting
that a litigant “prove  that he has suffered a  concrete and 
particularized  injury  that  is  fairly  traceable  to  the  chal-
lenged conduct, and is likely to be redressed by a favorable
judicial  decision.”  Hollingsworth  v.  Perry,  570  U. S.  693, 
704  (2013);  Lujan  v.  Defenders  of  Wildlife,  504  U. S.  555, 
560–561 (1992).

Two aspects of standing doctrine are relevant here.  First, 
standing  requires  an  “ ‘injury  in  fact’ ”  that  must  be  “con-
crete and particularized,” as well as “ ‘actual or imminent.’ ”  
Id., at 560.  It cannot be “ ‘ “conjectural or hypothetical.” ’ ” 
Ibid.    Second,  a  grievance  that  amounts  to  nothing  more
than an abstract and generalized harm to a citizen’s inter-
est in the proper application of the law does not count as an