Opinion ID: 167827
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Necessity of a Standing Analysis

Text: 15 Because the Defendants conceded below that UAC had standing, the district court declined in the interest of judicial economy to address the question of MSLF's standing. Id. at 1185 n. 6. Nevertheless, MSLF's standing is a critical issue in this appeal because only MSLF has appealed the district court decision. 16 The requirement that a plaintiff have standing is grounded in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which restricts federal court adjudication to actual cases or controversies. Utah v. Babbitt, 137 F.3d 1193, 1201 (10th Cir.1998); see also San Juan County v. United States, 420 F.3d 1197, 1203 (10th Cir.2005) (Article III of the Constitution limits the power of federal courts to deciding `cases' and `controversies.' Standing to sue ... is an aspect of the case-or-controversy requirement.) (quotations, citations omitted). We have noted that [s]tanding to invoke the power of the federal courts is not a mere technical hoop through which every plaintiff must pass, but rather is `a part of the basic charter promulgated by the Framers of the Constitution.' Babbitt, 137 F.3d at 1202 ( quoting Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 476, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982)). Where, as here, a plaintiff challenges an action of the President, proper evaluation of standing is particularly important. See id. (Because Plaintiffs have invoked Article III jurisdiction to challenge the conduct of the executive branch of government, the necessity of a case or controversy is of particular import.). We therefore must address whether MSLF had standing to bring its claims against Defendants.