This is an essay I wrote off the top of my head for a test a while back over the doctrine of standing. These essays are not meant to be the authority on the subject, but I have edited them to the best of my knowledge to make them worthy of a read for people looking for a foundation on the topic.
The Standing Doctrine
The doctrine of standing has its roots in the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Sction 2, Clause 1. This part of the Constitution sets out to establish the types of cases or controversies that may be brought to the Supreme Court. Under the still developing standing doctrine, a case or controversy has an additional test to its justiciability. The person or group bringing the case to the Supreme Court must demonstrate a connection to the case or controversy in the form of injury or damages.
Since the beginning, the Supreme Court has wrestled with how standing is established. In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992), the Supreme Court strongly admonished the complaintants’ reasoning for standing. Although suing on behalf of endangered animal species, the complaintants tried suing under more obscure pretenses. The Supreme Court decided that these pretenses did not establish standing, as no concrete damages were indicated. In Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation (2007), the previously established “taxpayer standing” was ruled as not applicable to executive discretionary spending.
The doctrine of standing continues to evolve with each court case. Restrictions and caveats such as taxpayer standing could be embellished or removed completely in the future.