About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

13 Hastings Const. L.Q. 57 (1985-1986)
Injury for Standing Purposes When Constitutional Rights are Violated: Common Law Public Value Adjudication at Work

handle is hein.journals/hascq13 and id is 67 raw text is: Injury for Standing Purposes When Constitutional Rights are Violated: Common Law Public Value Adjudication at Work By WILLIAM BURNHAM* Introduction For the past ten years, Article III standing in the federal courts has required the litigant to show that he or she has suffered or is threatened with distinct and palpable injury, that the respondent's actions caused the injury, and that the relief requested will redress the injury.' As these requirements suggest, the keystone of standing is injury. Without injury, there is no need to proceed with the analysis. Furthermore, the defini- tion of injury radically affects application of the causation and redres- sability requirements.2 Injury analysis begins with the identification of the litigant's inter- ests, the invasion or impairment of which results in cognizable injury.3 * Assistant Professor of Law, Wayne State University Law School. A.B., B.S., 1968, J.D. 1973, Indiana University (Bloomington). 1. See generally 13 C. WRIGHT, A. MILLER, AND E. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §§ 3531.4-3531.6 (2d ed. 1984). The existence of three separate and distinct standing requirements of injury, causation, and redressability has not always been clear from the Court's summary statements about standing. The Court has sometimes described causa- tion and redressability as the same thing. See, e.g., Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 74 (1978) has sometimes mentioned only redressability in summarizing the requirements, id. at 79, and Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 100 (1979); has sometimes mentioned only causation in summarizing, Gladstone Realtors, 441 U.S. at 99; and has sometimes spoken as if causation and redressability were two separate requirements. Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26 (1976) and Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982). In recent cases, however, there has been a greater tendency to distill out three distinct requirements, see, e.g., Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728, 737-40 (1984); Allen v. Wright, 104 S. Ct. 3315, 3325 (1984). 2. See infra text accompanying notes 93-113. See also Nichol, Rethinking Standing, 72 CAL. L. REV. 68, 79-82 (1984). 3. See Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41 n.22 (1976) (quoting Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617 n.3 (1973)); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734 (1972). See also C. WRIGHT, A. MILLER AND E. COOPER, supra note 1, at § 3531.4;

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most