Opinion ID: 2973176
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Standing Doctrine

Text: Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to “cases” or “controversies.” To determine when a matter is a “case” or “controversy,” that is, when a dispute or claim is justiciable or appropriately resolved through the federal judicial process, one of the tools the Supreme Court has developed is the doctrine of standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). A plaintiff’s standing to have the merits of his case decided by a federal court is the “threshold question in every federal case.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975); Coyne v. American Tobacco Co., 183 F.3d 488, 494 (6th Cir. 1999). The Supreme Court has identified three elements that compose the “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact.” Id. The injury must be “concrete and particularized” and it must be “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. (citations omitted). Second, the injury suffered must be “fairly traceable,” or causally connected, to the challenged conduct. Id. (citation omitted). Third, it must be likely, and not merely speculative, that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. at 561. Because the case at bar involves declaratory and injunctive relief (to the extent that Cohn’s mandamus claim is akin to a claim for a mandatory injunction), Cohn may make a pre-enforcement challenge before the actual completion of a concrete and particularized injury. Grendell, 252 F.3d at 832. Cohn, however, must still show “actual present harm or a significant possibility of future harm” in order to warrant pre-enforcement review. Id. (quoting Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Magaw, 6 132 F.3d 272, 279 (6th Cir. 1997)). Further, a plaintiff must have standing for each claim he asserts. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105 (1983) (finding that a plaintiff’s standing for damages claim does not establish his standing to seek injunctive relief); Donahue v. City of Boston, 304 F.3d 110, 116 (1st Cir. 2002) (“[A] plaintiff must ensure that he establishes standing for each claim and for each form of relief sought”). The burden of establishing standing lies with the plaintiff. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561.