Add to ORKGThe Supreme Court is charged with protecting the Constitution, but it is not a roving commission. It must wait for a case to arrive at its doorstep before determining whether the Constitution has been violated. Someone must claim that a policy or practice is unconstitutional and, in addition, show that he or she has been, or is likely to be, injured by it. Without this showing of injury, the Court will dismiss the suit on the theory that the party who initiated the suit or the plaintiff lacked “standing,” without ever addressing the merits of the claim advanced
In Spokeo v Robins, the Supreme Court confronted one of the harder questions of its intricate law of...
High courts around the world have increasingly invalidated constitutional amendments in defense of t...
Some federal courts have devised a new test of prudential standing that they use to dismiss suits fi...
The Supreme Court is charged with protecting the Constitution, but it is not a roving commission. It...
The Supreme Court insists that Article III of the Constitution requires a litigant to have standing ...
Standing is a precondition for any suit brought in federal court. This Commentary analyzes a Supreme...
From the Introduction In the last Term at the United States Supreme Court [2022], standing was the c...
According to the Supreme Court, the Federal Constitution limits not only the types of matters that f...
Although scholars have long criticized the standing doctrine for its malleability, its incoherence, ...
The most effective response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s construction of Article III standards will b...
Recent Supreme Court decisions severely restrict the right of citizens to litigate in federal courts...
Abstract: In Clapper v. Amnesty International, the Supreme Court ruled that lawyers and journalists ...
Two recent United States Supreme Court cases on standing, Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Sto...
The requirement of standing to sue in federal court is familiar, but the related requirement of stan...
In Spokeo v. Robins, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the following question: Does Co...
In Spokeo v Robins, the Supreme Court confronted one of the harder questions of its intricate law of...
High courts around the world have increasingly invalidated constitutional amendments in defense of t...
Some federal courts have devised a new test of prudential standing that they use to dismiss suits fi...
The Supreme Court is charged with protecting the Constitution, but it is not a roving commission. It...
The Supreme Court insists that Article III of the Constitution requires a litigant to have standing ...
Standing is a precondition for any suit brought in federal court. This Commentary analyzes a Supreme...
From the Introduction In the last Term at the United States Supreme Court [2022], standing was the c...
According to the Supreme Court, the Federal Constitution limits not only the types of matters that f...
Although scholars have long criticized the standing doctrine for its malleability, its incoherence, ...
The most effective response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s construction of Article III standards will b...
Recent Supreme Court decisions severely restrict the right of citizens to litigate in federal courts...
Abstract: In Clapper v. Amnesty International, the Supreme Court ruled that lawyers and journalists ...
Two recent United States Supreme Court cases on standing, Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Sto...
The requirement of standing to sue in federal court is familiar, but the related requirement of stan...
In Spokeo v. Robins, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the following question: Does Co...
In Spokeo v Robins, the Supreme Court confronted one of the harder questions of its intricate law of...
High courts around the world have increasingly invalidated constitutional amendments in defense of t...
Some federal courts have devised a new test of prudential standing that they use to dismiss suits fi...