Opinion ID: 3188130
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Third-Party Standing and Procedural Standing

Text: In their brief, the Defender Organizations advance, for the first time, two additional theories of standing. First, they claim that, at a minimum, they had standing to challenge procedural errors in the notice-and-comment-rulemaking process that culminated in the issuance of the Final Regulations, because they participated in that process. Second, the Defender Organizations argue that they had thirdparty standing to challenge the Final Regulations on behalf of their death-sentenced clients. However, even under these theories, the Defender Organizations must identify a concrete interest of their own that is harmed by the Final Regulations; they cannot circumvent the injury-in-fact requirement of standing. See, e.g., Summers, 555 U.S. at 496 (procedural standing); Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 623 n.3 (1989) (third-party standing). Because we find that the Defender Organizations have not suffered a legally cognizable injury as a result of the promulgation of the Final Regulations, we need not address these theories further.