Justiciability requirements: case or controversy and standing - Next Generation Bar Exam

1. Under Clapper v. Amnesty International, what showing of future injury is required for standing?

   That the injury is certainly impending or there is a substantial risk it will occur. A speculative chain of possibilities does not suffice.

2. Under FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, what does not establish standing to challenge the government's regulation of others?

   A moral, ideological, or policy objection to the government's regulation of other people. Plaintiffs who are not themselves regulated must show a concrete injury of their own.

3. Under Flast v. Cohen as later narrowed, when does a federal taxpayer have standing?

   To challenge a specific congressional appropriation under the taxing and spending power as violating the Establishment Clause. Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation refused to extend the exception to discretionary executive spending.

4. What are the three elements of Article III standing?

   Injury in fact, causation (fair traceability to the defendant), and redressability by a favorable decision. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing each element.

5. What qualities must an injury in fact have?

   It must be concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent. Conjectural or hypothetical injuries do not suffice.

6. What is the standing status of a plaintiff who asserts only a generalized interest, as a citizen or taxpayer, in having the government follow the law?

   The plaintiff lacks standing. Generalized grievances shared by all citizens are for the political branches.

7. How must standing be established when a plaintiff seeks multiple forms of relief?

   Separately for each claim and each form of relief. Standing is not dispensed in gross.

8. What must an organization show to sue on behalf of its members?

   Its members would have standing, the interests are germane to its purpose, and the suit does not require members' participation. This test for associational standing comes from Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission.

9. A citizen sues to invalidate a federal program, alleging only that it wastes tax money that all taxpayers contribute. What is the likely ruling on standing?

   The suit is dismissed, because the claim is a generalized grievance. An interest shared equally by all taxpayers is not a particularized injury.

10. When may a litigant assert the rights of third parties?

    When the litigant has a close relationship with them and they face a hindrance to protecting their own interests. The litigant must also have its own injury in fact.

11. Under TransUnion v. Ramirez, when is an intangible harm concrete enough for standing?

    When it bears a close relationship to a harm traditionally recognized as a basis for suit. A bare statutory violation, without such a harm, does not confer standing.

12. What standing do individual members of Congress have to challenge a statute for diluting their votes?

    They generally lack standing for such institutional injuries. Raines v. Byrd held that an abstract dilution of legislative power is not a personal injury.

13. Under City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, what must a plaintiff seeking an injunction show beyond a past injury?

    A real and immediate threat of future injury. Past injury supports a damages claim but not prospective relief.

Study these flashcards