Struggling with Standing

The Supreme Court's conservatives are not cutting conservative litigants any slack (and that's a good thing).

Conservative litigants have lost quite a few cases on standing grounds in recent years. I have an article discussing this in the September issue of National Review (titled "Standing Up" in the print edition). Here's a taste:

FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine is one of several cases in recent years brought by conservative plaintiffs advancing conservative causes to the Court, only to founder on the shoals of standing. Also this term, in Murthy v. Missouri, the Court concluded that social-media users lacked standing to seek an injunction barring federal officials from pressuring social-media platforms to suppress or deplatform unpopular speech as "disinformation." Whatever improper conduct officials had engaged in to suppress speech in the past, Justice Amy Coney Barrett explained, no plaintiff could show the imminent threat of government action necessary to justify an injunction.

AHM and Murthy are not aberrations. In recent years the Court has turned away conservative challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Affordable Care Act, and Biden-administration immigration policies as well, all on standing grounds. If some hoped (or feared) that a conservative Supreme Court would loosen the standing barrier against policy-oriented litigation, they were sorely mistaken.

That a conservative Supreme Court insists on enforcing traditional rules of standing should be no surprise. Stringent standing rules have been a core element of conservative jurisprudence for decades. Current doctrine was shaped by the late justice Antonin Scalia as much as by anyone else, and it has also been a priority of Chief Justice Roberts, who sees it as a way of preventing political activists from using the courts to fight policy battles that belong in Congress or at the ballot box.

The idea of standing is grounded in Article III of the Constitution, which limits federal-court jurisdiction to "cases" and "controversies." The idea is that an individual litigant should have a sufficient stake in the outcome of a legal dispute to justify the exercise of federal jurisdiction over his claim. "In more pedestrian terms," as then-judge Antonin Scalia explained in a 1983 law-review article, "it is an answer to the very first question that is sometimes rudely asked when one person complains of another's actions: 'What's it to you?'" It is not enough to care deeply about a particular question. One has to have a sufficiently tangible stake if one wants one's arguments heard in a federal court.

In the article I also discuss some of the recent complaints about standing doctrine from the Right, including those put forward by Judge Kevin Newsom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. I engage the latter quite extensively in my Wake Forest Law Review article, "Standing without Injury."

The complaints about standing from the Right, combined with continuing concerns about third-party standing, associational standing, and state standing, make standing doctrine poised for revision, and potentially in ways that do not easily conform to ideological priors or even to linear characterization (e.g. "easier"/"harder").  I suspect standing could become easier in some contexts, but more difficult in others. The question then will be whether standing's current critics will be happy with the end result. I have my doubts.