Article III standing - what is it?
Article III Standing
Article III standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff have a personal stake in a dispute before a federal court may decide it. It limits federal courts to actual “Cases” and “Controversies,” rather than requests for legal advice or challenges based only on a general interest in government compliance with the law.[1]
A plaintiff generally must establish three elements:
| Element | What it requires |
|---|---|
| Injury in fact | A concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent—not speculative. |
| Traceability | A fair connection between the injury and the defendant’s challenged conduct. |
| Redressability | It is likely that the requested court decision would remedy the injury. |
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992); Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016).[1][2]
Concrete means real, not abstract; it need not be physical or economic. Some intangible harms can qualify, including reputational harm. But alleging only that a statute was violated does not automatically establish standing: the plaintiff must show concrete harm, or, in appropriate circumstances, a sufficiently real risk of harm.[2][3]
Standing must be shown for each claim and each form of relief sought. The required factual support also increases as a case proceeds: allegations may suffice at the pleading stage, but later stages require evidence.[3][4]
In short: A plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct caused—or imminently threatens—a real, personal injury that the court can likely remedy.