Opinion ID: 3046880
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: C onstitutional standing req uirem ents

Text: “Article III, § 2, of the Constitution restricts the federal ‘judicial Pow er’ to the resolution of ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’ That case-or controversy requirement is satisfied only where a plaintiff has standing.” Sprint Commc’ns C o. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 128 S. Ct. 2531, 2535 (2008); see also Valley Forge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 471. [I]n order to have Article III standing, a plaintiff must adequately establish: (1) an injury in fact (i.e., a “concrete and particulariz ed” in vasion of a “legally protected interest”); (2) causation (i.e., a “fairly traceable” connection between the alleged injury in fact and the alleged conduct of the defendant); and (3) redressability (i.e., it is “likely” and not “merely speculative” that the plaintiff’s injury will be remedied by the relief plaintiff seeks in bringing suit). Sprint Commc’ns Co., 128 S. Ct. at 2535 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61) (further quotation, alterations omitted); see also Cortes, 508 F.3d at 161. “In this manner does Art. III limit the federal judicial power ‘to those disputes w hich confine federal courts to a role consistent w ith a system of separated powers and which are 18 traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.’” Valley Forge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 472 (quoting Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 97 (1968)). “Determining that a m atter before the federal courts is a proper case or controversy under A rticle III therefore assumes particular importance in ensuring that the Federal Judiciary respects the proper— and properly limited— role of the courts in a democratic society.” DaimlerChrysler Corp., 547 U.S. at 341 (quotation omitted). “[N]o principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.” Id. (quotations omitted). “If a dispute is not a proper case or controversy, the courts have no business deciding it . . . .” Id. Of particular relevance to this case, a plaintiff must allege an actual, concrete injury. See Sprint Comm c’ns Co., 128 S. Ct. at 2535; Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. It is not enough to assert a generalized, abstract grievance shared by a large number of similarly situated people. See Valley Forge Christian Coll., 454 U.S. at 482-83 (citing cases). W e go on to discuss prudential standing.