Opinion ID: 1228174
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Voter/taxpayer plaintiffs[11]

Text: The complaint names seven plaintiffs who are adult, competent individuals residing in Pennsylvania, and are qualified voters and taxpayers in Pennsylvania. A94. There is no evidence that these individuals have an interest in anything more than mere generalized grievances of concerned citizens. See e.g., Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 573-74, 112 S.Ct. 2130 ([A] plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government-claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large-does not state an Article III case or controversy); DaimlerChrysler Corp., ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. at 1862 (Standing has been rejected where the alleged injury is not concrete and particularized, . . . but instead a grievance the taxpayer suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 616, 109 S.Ct. 2037, 104 L.Ed.2d 696 (1989) ([G]eneralized grievances brought by concerned citizens . . . are not cognizable in the federal courts). Significantly, the plaintiffs do not even argue that the organizational or voter/taxpayer plaintiffs have standing. We therefore hold that the voter/taxpayer plaintiffs, just as the organizational plaintiffs, do not satisfy the constitutional imperative for standing.