← The hardest concepts in United States law
In one breath
To bring a case in federal court, a plaintiff must show a concrete injury of their own, caused by the defendant, that a court order could fix (standing). The dispute must also be developed enough to decide (ripeness) and still alive when the court rules (mootness).
The picture
The fire department call
A fire department comes out for a real fire in a real house. If your own house is burning, you have a good reason to call. If you merely dislike fire in the abstract, or worry about a neighbor’s house, the department will not come. The fire must also be the one that is actually spreading to you, and the department must be able to put it out. Those three questions, your own injury, a traceable cause and a fixable harm, are the three parts of standing.
Timing matters as well. If someone only smells a distant spark that may or may not become a fire, the department says it is too early: the case is not ripe. If by the time the engine arrives the fire has gone out on its own, there is nothing to put out: the case is moot, unless the arsonist is free to light it again whenever he likes, in which case the department may still come.
Where the picture stops working
A department serves the public by choice. A federal court has no such choice, because the Constitution limits it to cases and controversies. Part of the doctrine is also self-imposed, such as the reluctance to hear grievances shared equally by everyone, and the Court has shaped these parts differently over time.
How it really works
- 1Injury in fact. The plaintiff must have suffered, or be about to suffer, an injury that is concrete and particular to them and actual or imminent, not conjectural.
- 2Causation. The injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged conduct, and not the independent act of a third party who is not before the court.
- 3Redressability. It must be likely, not merely possible, that a favorable decision would remedy the injury.
- 4Ripeness. Weigh whether the issue is fit for decision now (is it purely legal, and has the action actually happened?) and what hardship the parties would suffer if the court waited.
- 5Mootness. The controversy must stay alive through every stage of review. A defendant that stops the challenged conduct does not necessarily end the case, since the question is whether the conduct could reasonably be expected to resume.
Why people get it wrong
- Thinking standing asks whether the plaintiff will win. It asks only whether this plaintiff is the right person to be in court.
- Mistaking a strongly held concern for an injury. A general interest in seeing the law obeyed, shared with the public at large, is not enough.
- Treating the elements as one. Causation and redressability are separate hurdles, and each can fail while injury is plain.
- Forgetting that standing is assessed claim by claim and remedy by remedy. A plaintiff may have it for damages for past harm and lack it for an order about the future.
- Assuming a defendant’s change of course always makes a case moot. Voluntary cessation does not automatically do so.
A worked example
The facts are invented
The invented city of Calder bans street musicians from its old town. Priya, a violinist who plays there every Saturday and has been told she will be fined, sues in federal court. She has standing: her injury is personal and concrete, the ordinance causes it, and an injunction would remedy it. Hugo, a tourist who thinks the ban is a shame, sues too. His is a general displeasure shared with many others, so he has no standing.
Suppose Priya has not been fined yet, but the city has said it will enforce the ordinance. The dispute is ripe, since the question is a legal one and the threat is credible. If the city repeals the ordinance after she sues, the case may become moot. But if nothing stops the city from passing it again, the court asks whether it is absolutely clear the conduct will not return, and the burden of showing that rests on the city.
Try it
A resident sues in federal court to stop a government program she says is unlawful. The only harm she claims is one that every member of the public shares equally. Does she have standing?
Landmark authorities
Read the sources themselves; this list is a starting point.
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, 528 U.S. 167 (2000)
Where to go next
Case briefs
More hard concepts in United States law
- The levels of scrutiny in equal protection (Constitutional law)
- The dormant Commerce Clause (Constitutional law)
- Federal preemption (Constitutional law)
- The Eleventh Amendment and state sovereign immunity (Constitutional law)
- Claim preclusion and issue preclusion (Civil procedure)
This page is an educational overview. It is not legal advice and not a substitute for the sources: the statute, the rule, the case itself. United States law is made in fifty states and in the federal system, and the rules differ between them. Each page states the usual formulation of the rule and names landmark decisions; your own state, circuit or course may use different wording. Check the primary sources before relying on any rule.