A standing refers to the power to contest a court action. According to Hessick (2015), a standing is among the most important federal judiciary doctrines as it defines its power. There are thousands of disputes that require the court’s attention. However, not all of them can be resolved. Hence, Article 3 allows the federal judiciary to deal with cases and controversies only. Hessick (2015) notes that the Supreme Court interprets the term “standing” as the federal courts' act to resolve disputes that were earlier resolved by or were traditionally amenable to the judicial process. Hessick (2015), further notes that the importance of the limitation of its interpretation is to maintain the separation of power. There have been inconsistencies about the requirements that a plaintiff needs to establish a standing. In some cases, it is only proof of the violation of an individual's rights that is required; in some, proof of factual harm is required. In the case of the latter suggestion, the plaintiff has to demonstrate that they have suffered an "injury in fact." This is interpreted to mean that the plaintiff must have experienced harm, such as a broken bone or loss of money. Depending on the type of dispute, this phrase could be considered the invasion of a legally protected interest (Hessick. 2015). Despite these requirements, Hessick (2015) holds that if the main importance of Article 3 is to protect the separation of power, the federal courts only get to resolve disputes previously heard in court, then a plaintiff's only requirement is the violation of their right. Standing is not mentioned in the constitution. Rather, it is a construct of the judiciary, which is of recent origin.
References
Hessick, F. A. (2015). Understanding Standing. Vand. L. Rev. En Banc , 68 , 195.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
