Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 846

529US3

Unit: $U59

[09-26-01 12:32:42] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 765 (2000)

771

Opinion of the Court

II

We ﬁrst address the jurisdictional question whether re-
spondent Stevens has standing under Article III of the Con-
stitution to maintain this suit. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for
Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 93–102 (1998).

As we have frequently explained, a plaintiff must meet
three requirements in order to establish Article III standing.
See, e. g., Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental
Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 180–181 (2000). First,
he must demonstrate “injury in fact”—a harm that is both
“concrete” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypo-
thetical.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U. S. 149, 155 (1990)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Second, he
must establish causation—a “fairly . . . trace[able]” connec-
tion between the alleged injury in fact and the alleged
conduct of the defendant. Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare
Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 41 (1976). And third, he
must demonstrate redressability—a “substantial likelihood”
that the requested relief will remedy the alleged injury in
fact.
Id., at 45. These requirements together constitute
the “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing, Lujan
v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992), which is
an “essential and unchanging part” of Article III’s case-or-
controversy requirement, ibid., and a key factor in dividing
the power of government between the courts and the two
political branches, see id., at 559–560.

Respondent Stevens contends that he is suing to remedy
It is beyond
an injury in fact suffered by the United States.
doubt that the complaint asserts an injury to the United
States—both the injury to its sovereignty arising from vio-
lation of its laws (which sufﬁces to support a criminal law-
suit by the Government) and the proprietary injury resulting
from the alleged fraud. But “[t]he Art. III judicial power
exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury
to the complaining party.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490,