Opinion ID: 1364850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Federal Standing

Text: Standing for any party to sue is part and parcel of the larger requirement of justiciability. Four components of the justiciability doctrine are (1) ripeness, (2) mootness, (3) political question, and (4) standing. [11] If a party can show that he/she passes muster under all of these justiciable factors, then a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction and can address the merits of the case. Litigants who seek access to federal court for resolution of their dispute face two hurdles in meeting the threshold requirement of standing  constitutional limitations of federal courts' jurisdiction and prudential limitations on its exercise. [12] The constitutional aspect of standing is whether the plaintiff has made out a `case or controversy' between himself and the defendant within the meaning of Art. III. [13] [A]t an irreducible minimum, Art. III requires the party who invokes the court's authority to show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant [14] ... and that the injury `fairly can be traced to the challenged action' and `is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision... .' [15] The prudential aspect of the standing doctrine addresses itself to the self-restraint by which federal courts limit their jurisdiction. Generally, the plaintiff can only assert that his own interests and legal rights have been injured, and not those of third parties. [16] In addition, the plaintiff must show that his asserted injury would not be better addressed in the representative branches of government, and that his injury falls within the zone of interest protected by the statute or constitutional guarantee upon which his claim is based. [17] Only if these aspects are met will the court balance the prudential considerations in evaluating whether to grant standing. [18] C.