Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Standing Analysis

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Standing AnalysisQuestion 1 of 20

A group of state legislators, all members of the minority party, filed a lawsuit in federal court against the state's governor. The governor, a member of the majority party, recently issued an executive order that directs state agencies on how to implement a new environmental law. The legislators allege that the governor's executive order exceeds the authority granted by the statute and effectively rewrites the law, thereby nullifying their legislative votes and usurping the power of the legislature as a whole. The governor moved to dismiss for lack of standing.

Will the court likely find that the legislators have standing? Select one.

Yes, because the governor's action has nullified the effect of their individual votes, which constitutes a particularized injury to their official duties.

Yes, because as elected officials, they have a special duty to ensure the executive branch faithfully executes the law.

No, because the alleged injury is to the power of the legislature as an institution, not a personal injury to the individual legislators.

No, because the dispute is a non-justiciable political question regarding the separation of powers at the state level.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Standing Analysis

Practice Standing Analysis in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Standing Analysis, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Will the court likely find that the legislators have standing? Select one.

Yes, because the governor's action has nullified the effect of their individual votes, which constitutes a particularized injury to their official duties.
Yes, because as elected officials, they have a special duty to ensure the executive branch faithfully executes the law.
No, because the alleged injury is to the power of the legislature as an institution, not a personal injury to the individual legislators. (correct answer)
No, because the dispute is a non-justiciable political question regarding the separation of powers at the state level.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The Supreme Court has held that individual legislators generally do not have standing to challenge a law or executive action that they allege injures the power of the legislature as a whole. The alleged injury is institutional, not personal. An exception exists if the legislator's vote was completely nullified (e.g., they were denied the right to vote), but an action that simply diminishes the effectiveness of their vote after the fact is considered an institutional injury. The proper remedy lies in the political process, not in the courts. A is incorrect because the claim is that the law's effect was changed, not that their votes were uncounted or denied. B describes a political duty, not a basis for Article III standing. D is a related concept, but the primary defect is lack of standing.

Question 2

A group of low-income individuals sued the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in federal court. Their complaint alleges that HUD's regulations for a housing voucher program are too restrictive, making it difficult for them to qualify for assistance. The plaintiffs seek an injunction ordering HUD to loosen its eligibility criteria. However, the housing voucher program is administered by local Public Housing Authorities (PHAs), which are not parties to the lawsuit. The PHAs have independent discretion to establish certain local preferences and are not required to participate in the voucher program at all. HUD moves to dismiss.

What is HUD's strongest argument for dismissal based on lack of standing? Select one.

The plaintiffs have not suffered a concrete injury because they have no legal entitlement to housing vouchers.
The plaintiffs' injury is a generalized grievance shared by all low-income individuals in the country.
The plaintiffs' alleged injury is not fairly traceable to HUD's regulations but to the independent actions of local PHAs.
A favorable court decision would not redress the plaintiffs' injury because it depends on the independent actions of non-party PHAs. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. This question focuses on the redressability element of standing. To have standing, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable decision will redress the injury. Here, even if the court ordered HUD to change its regulations, the plaintiffs' ability to obtain housing vouchers would still depend on the independent decisions of local PHAs, which are not parties to the suit. The PHAs could choose not to participate or could use their discretion in other ways to deny vouchers. Thus, a favorable ruling against HUD would not guarantee a remedy for the plaintiffs. A is incorrect because the inability to obtain a government benefit can be a concrete injury. B is incorrect as the injury is particular to those who applied or wish to apply for vouchers. C addresses causation, which is also a plausible argument, but redressability is the stronger defect because the remedy itself is contingent on the actions of third parties.

Question 3

An environmental organization, whose members regularly hike and fish in a national forest, filed a lawsuit in federal court against a federal agency. The lawsuit challenges the agency's new regulation that permits limited commercial logging in a remote section of the forest. The organization's complaint alleges that the logging will decrease the population of a specific fish species that its members enjoy catching and will degrade the scenic beauty of the trails its members use. The agency files a motion to dismiss, arguing that the organization lacks standing.

What is the organization's best argument to establish standing? Select one.

The organization has a long-standing interest in environmental protection, which is germane to the subject of the lawsuit.
The organization's members will suffer a concrete and particularized injury to their recreational and aesthetic interests. (correct answer)
The federal statute governing the agency's actions contains a citizen-suit provision authorizing any person to sue for violations.
The agency's regulation fails to consider the long-term environmental impact, creating a generalized grievance for all citizens concerned with conservation.

Explanation: The correct answer is B because an organization has standing to sue on behalf of its members if (1) its members would have standing to sue in their own right, (2) the interests at stake are germane to the organization's purpose, and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members. Here, the members' alleged injury to their recreational (fishing) and aesthetic (scenic beauty) interests is a concrete and particularized injury sufficient to confer standing. A states a component of associational standing (germaneness) but fails to address the essential element of member injury. C is incorrect because Congress cannot eliminate the Article III requirement of a concrete and particularized injury simply by authorizing anyone to sue. D describes a non-justiciable generalized grievance, which is insufficient for standing.

Question 4

A group of farmers sued a federal agency, challenging its decision to authorize the release of a genetically modified insect intended to control agricultural pests. The farmers do not use the crops targeted by the pest, but they allege that the modified insect could crossbreed with native insects, leading to unforeseen ecological consequences that might eventually harm their own organic crops in the future. The agency moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing the alleged harm is speculative.

To defeat the motion to dismiss, which fact would be most crucial for the farmers to establish? Select one.

That the federal agency failed to prepare an adequate environmental impact statement before its decision.
That there is a significant likelihood the modified insects will spread to their farms and a credible risk they will harm their crops. (correct answer)
That the agency's decision will provide a competitive advantage to farmers who grow the crops targeted by the pest.
That the statute authorizing the agency's action was passed without sufficient legislative debate on ecological risks.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The central issue for standing here is whether the farmers' alleged injury is too speculative. To overcome this, they must demonstrate that the threat is imminent and concrete, not merely conjectural. Establishing a significant likelihood of spread and a credible risk of harm would transform their claim from a hypothetical fear into a non-speculative, imminent injury-in-fact. A relates to a potential procedural violation, but standing still requires a concrete interest to be protected by that procedure. C alleges an indirect economic harm that may be too attenuated. D raises a political question about the legislative process, which is irrelevant to the farmers' standing to challenge the agency action.

Question 5

What is the organization's best argument to establish standing? Select one.

The organization has a long-standing interest in environmental protection, which is germane to the subject of the lawsuit.
The organization's members will suffer a concrete and particularized injury to their recreational and aesthetic interests. (correct answer)
The federal statute governing the agency's actions contains a citizen-suit provision authorizing any person to sue for violations.
The agency's regulation fails to consider the long-term environmental impact, creating a generalized grievance for all citizens concerned with conservation.

Question 6

A homeowner lives five miles from a dormant volcano. A federal agency recently approved a permit for a geothermal energy company to begin exploratory drilling near the volcano. The homeowner filed a lawsuit seeking to revoke the permit, alleging that the drilling creates a hypothetical risk that it could destabilize the volcano's magma chamber, leading to a future eruption that would destroy their home. The agency's scientific assessment concluded that the risk of such an event was 'scientifically possible but exceedingly remote.' The agency has moved to dismiss for lack of standing.

Will the court likely grant the motion to dismiss? Select one.

Yes, because the alleged injury is not actual or imminent, but is instead conjectural and hypothetical. (correct answer)
Yes, because the homeowner's claim is not ripe for review until the drilling actually causes seismic activity.
No, because the potential destruction of the homeowner's property is a concrete and particularized injury.
No, because the agency's permit is the direct cause of the increased risk to the homeowner's property.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. To have standing, a plaintiff's alleged injury must be 'actual or imminent,' not 'conjectural or hypothetical.' While an increased risk of future harm can sometimes constitute an injury-in-fact, the risk must be substantial. Here, the alleged risk of a volcanic eruption is described as 'exceedingly remote,' which falls into the category of conjectural or hypothetical. Therefore, the homeowner cannot establish a sufficient injury-in-fact. B confuses standing with ripeness; while related, the core defect here is the speculative nature of the injury itself, which is an element of standing. C is incorrect because although the type of injury (destruction of property) is concrete, the likelihood of it occurring is too speculative to satisfy the imminence requirement. D is incorrect because causation is irrelevant if there is no cognizable injury-in-fact.

Question 7

A person was denied a promotion at her job with a federal agency. She filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that the denial was based on her political affiliation, in violation of the First Amendment. She presented evidence of her long history of excellent performance reviews. The agency filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing that the employee had no constitutional right to the promotion and thus suffered no legally cognizable injury.

How should the court rule on the motion to dismiss? Select one.

Grant the motion, because the employee has no property interest in a promotion and therefore has not suffered an injury in fact.
Grant the motion, because a claim of unconstitutional conduct is a generalized grievance unless it affects a fundamental right.
Deny the motion, because the question of whether the employee has a right to the promotion goes to the merits of the case, not to standing. (correct answer)
Deny the motion, but only if the employee can prove that she was the most qualified candidate for the position.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This question tests the distinction between standing and the merits of a claim. Standing is a threshold jurisdictional inquiry that asks whether the plaintiff is the proper party to bring the matter to the court. The question of whether the plaintiff's legal rights have actually been violated is a question for the merits. Here, the employee has alleged a concrete and particularized injury (the denial of a promotion) that is traceable to the defendant's action (the decision not to promote her) and is redressable by the court (e.g., through damages or an order to reconsider). The agency's argument that she has no right to the promotion confuses the standing inquiry with the ultimate legal question of whether the First Amendment was violated. A is incorrect for the same reason; the denial of a benefit is an injury in fact, regardless of whether there was a legal entitlement to it. B is incorrect because this is a claim of specific, individualized harm, not a generalized grievance. D improperly imports a merits-based requirement into the standing analysis.

Question 8

You are representing a client who wishes to challenge a new federal statute. The statute authorizes a $100 million congressional appropriation to fund the acquisition of new textbooks for private religious schools nationwide. Your client is a federal taxpayer who objects to their tax dollars being used to support religious institutions. You are preparing to file a complaint in federal court seeking to enjoin the expenditure as a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

On what basis can you most plausibly argue that your client has standing? Select one.

As a citizen, the client has a right to demand that the government operate in a constitutional manner.
The client has standing as a federal taxpayer to challenge a congressional appropriation made under the taxing and spending power that allegedly violates the Establishment Clause. (correct answer)
The client is injured because the government support for religious schools creates unwelcome religious competition for public schools.
The client, as a taxpayer, has a direct financial interest in any expenditure of public funds, regardless of the constitutional provision at issue.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. This question tests the narrow exception for federal taxpayer standing established in Flast v. Cohen. Generally, being a taxpayer does not confer standing to challenge government expenditures. However, the exception allows a federal taxpayer to challenge a congressional appropriation made under the taxing and spending power if they can show it violates a specific constitutional limitation on that power, such as the Establishment Clause. The facts here fit squarely within that exception. A describes a generalized grievance. C alleges a speculative and indirect injury. D states the general rule that is incorrect; taxpayer standing is not available for any expenditure and requires a link to a specific limitation on the spending power.

Question 9

To defeat the motion to dismiss, which fact would be most crucial for the farmers to establish? Select one.

That the federal agency failed to prepare an adequate environmental impact statement before its decision.
That there is a significant likelihood the modified insects will spread to their farms and a credible risk they will harm their crops. (correct answer)
That the agency's decision will provide a competitive advantage to farmers who grow the crops targeted by the pest.
That the statute authorizing the agency's action was passed without sufficient legislative debate on ecological risks.

Question 10

A group of parents resides in a city with a struggling public school system. The state legislature passed a bill appropriating $50 million for a pilot program providing grants to private, non-religious schools across the state to purchase new technology. The parents, who pay state income taxes, filed a lawsuit in federal court against the state treasurer, alleging that the program unconstitutionally diverts funds from public schools in violation of the state constitution's education clause. The state treasurer has moved to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of standing.

What is the most likely outcome of the motion to dismiss? Select one.

The motion will be denied, because the parents have standing as taxpayers to challenge an allegedly unconstitutional state expenditure.
The motion will be denied, because the parents' children suffer a direct injury from the underfunding of their public schools.
The motion will be granted, because federal courts generally do not permit taxpayer standing to challenge state government expenditures. (correct answer)
The motion will be granted, because the lawsuit raises a non-justiciable political question regarding the allocation of educational funds.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The Supreme Court has severely limited taxpayer standing. While a narrow exception exists for federal taxpayers to challenge federal appropriations under the Establishment Clause (Flast v. Cohen), this exception does not apply to challenges to state expenditures in federal court based on a state constitutional provision. The parents' interest as taxpayers is a generalized grievance, not a direct and particularized injury. A is incorrect because general taxpayer standing is not permitted. B is incorrect because the complaint does not allege a direct injury traceable to the state treasurer's action; the alleged injury is the general underfunding of schools, and it's not clear that blocking this specific program would redress that injury. D is incorrect because while the issue involves political decisions, the primary jurisdictional defect is the lack of standing.

Question 11

A commercial fisherman's business has suffered due to a dramatic decline in the local salmon population. He sued a manufacturing plant located 50 miles upstream, alleging that the plant's discharge of a specific chemical is killing the salmon. However, several other industrial facilities, as well as agricultural runoff from numerous farms, also release pollutants into the same river system between the plant and the fishing grounds. The manufacturing plant moved to dismiss the fisherman's complaint for lack of standing.

What is the plant's strongest argument that the fisherman lacks standing? Select one.

The fisherman's injury is not redressable because a court order against the plant will not restore the salmon population immediately.
The fisherman has not suffered a legally cognizable injury because economic harm alone is insufficient for standing.
The fisherman cannot show that his injury is fairly traceable to the plant's actions, as opposed to other sources of pollution. (correct answer)
The fisherman's claim is a generalized grievance because many people in the community are affected by the decline in salmon.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This question tests the causation element of standing. The plaintiff must show that the injury is 'fairly traceable' to the defendant's conduct. Here, because there are multiple independent sources of pollution that could be responsible for the decline in the salmon population, it will be difficult for the fisherman to trace his injury specifically to the defendant plant's discharge. This provides the plant with a strong argument for dismissal. A is incorrect because redressability does not require an immediate or complete remedy, only that a favorable decision is 'likely' to provide some relief. B is incorrect because economic harm is a classic form of concrete injury for standing purposes. D is incorrect because even if many people are harmed, an injury is not a generalized grievance as long as it is concrete and particularized, which economic harm to a specific fisherman is.

Question 12

How should the court rule on the motion to dismiss? Select one.

Grant the motion, because the employee has no property interest in a promotion and therefore has not suffered an injury in fact.
Grant the motion, because a claim of unconstitutional conduct is a generalized grievance unless it affects a fundamental right.
Deny the motion, because the question of whether the employee has a right to the promotion goes to the merits of the case, not to standing. (correct answer)
Deny the motion, but only if the employee can prove that she was the most qualified candidate for the position.

Question 13

A federal agency proposed a new rule through a formal rulemaking process. A federal statute requires the agency to hold a public hearing and provide a 60-day comment period before finalizing such a rule. The agency, citing time constraints, provided only a 15-day comment period and did not hold a public hearing. A trade association, whose members would be significantly affected by the rule, filed a lawsuit challenging the final rule. The association's complaint alleges that its members were deprived of their statutory right to comment and be heard.

Does the trade association have standing to challenge the rule on this basis? Select one.

No, because the failure to provide a comment period is a procedural harm without a separate concrete injury.
No, because the association cannot show that a longer comment period would have resulted in a different rule.
Yes, because the deprivation of a procedural right granted by statute is a sufficient injury in fact for standing. (correct answer)
Yes, but only if the association can prove the final rule is substantively invalid.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The Supreme Court has held that the violation of a procedural right granted by Congress can constitute a cognizable injury in fact, provided that the procedure is designed to protect some concrete interest of the plaintiff. Here, the statute grants a right to a specific comment period and hearing, and the purpose is to protect the concrete interests of regulated parties like the association's members. The deprivation of this right is itself the injury. A is incorrect because the law recognizes this type of procedural harm as a concrete injury. B incorrectly describes the redressability requirement; a plaintiff in a procedural rights case need not prove that the ultimate outcome would have been different, only that the agency's decision could be affected by the proper process. D incorrectly merges the merits of the case with the threshold question of standing.

Question 14

A woman lives next to a factory that has, for years, complied with its environmental permit limiting emissions of a certain chemical. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued a new permit that allows the factory to double its emissions of the chemical. The woman filed a lawsuit against the EPA, claiming that exposure to the higher level of emissions substantially increases her risk of developing a serious respiratory disease in the future. She has not yet developed the disease. The EPA moved to dismiss for lack of standing.

Is the woman's claim of an increased risk of future harm a sufficient injury in fact for standing? Select one.

Yes, because a sufficiently credible and substantial increase in the risk of future harm can constitute a concrete injury. (correct answer)
No, because her claim is not ripe for review until she is actually diagnosed with a respiratory disease.
No, because she has not yet suffered any physical harm, making her injury purely speculative.
Yes, because the EPA's action in issuing the permit directly caused the increase in emissions.

Explanation: Standing doctrine requires plaintiffs to demonstrate an "injury in fact" that is concrete and particularized, not abstract or speculative. When dealing with future harm, courts apply a nuanced test that distinguishes between mere speculation and sufficiently credible risks. Answer A correctly identifies that a substantial and credible increase in the risk of future harm can constitute concrete injury for standing purposes. The Supreme Court has recognized that environmental plaintiffs can establish standing based on increased health risks, even without current symptoms, if the risk increase is significant and scientifically supported. Here, the woman faces doubled chemical emissions that substantially increase her disease risk—this meets the concrete injury threshold. Answer B incorrectly conflates standing with ripeness. Ripeness concerns whether a case is ready for judicial review, but standing focuses on whether the plaintiff has suffered sufficient injury. The woman's increased exposure creates present injury through elevated risk, regardless of ripeness considerations. Answer C misapplies the speculation standard. While purely hypothetical future injuries don't support standing, substantial risk increases based on concrete changes (like doubled emissions) aren't merely speculative. The injury occurs when risk meaningfully increases, not when harm eventually materializes. Answer D identifies a factual connection but misses the legal point. Causation between EPA action and increased emissions doesn't automatically establish standing—the key is whether that causal chain creates sufficient injury in fact. Remember: Environmental standing often turns on risk assessment. Look for substantial, scientifically-supported risk increases rather than requiring actual physical harm. The injury is the increased risk itself, not the future disease.

Question 15

Is the woman's claim of an increased risk of future harm a sufficient injury in fact for standing? Select one.

Yes, because a sufficiently credible and substantial increase in the risk of future harm can constitute a concrete injury. (correct answer)
No, because her claim is not ripe for review until she is actually diagnosed with a respiratory disease.
No, because she has not yet suffered any physical harm, making her injury purely speculative.
Yes, because the EPA's action in issuing the permit directly caused the increase in emissions.

Question 16

A citizen filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Director of National Intelligence. The suit alleges that the intelligence agencies are not complying with a federal statute that requires them to submit certain reports to a congressional oversight committee. The citizen's complaint claims that this failure to comply 'harms the constitutional balance of powers and diminishes the rule of law,' thereby injuring all citizens of the nation. The government moved to dismiss the lawsuit.

What is the most likely reason the court will grant the motion to dismiss? Select one.

The lawsuit is barred by the political question doctrine because it involves the relationship between the executive and legislative branches.
The citizen lacks standing because they have alleged only a generalized grievance and not a particularized injury. (correct answer)
The citizen's claim is not ripe because no specific harm has occurred as a result of the failure to submit reports.
The lawsuit is barred by sovereign immunity because the citizen is suing a federal official in their official capacity.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The plaintiff's alleged injury—a harm to the rule of law and the constitutional balance of powers—is the classic example of a generalized grievance. It is an abstract injury shared in substantially equal measure by all citizens. Article III standing requires a plaintiff to show a concrete and particularized injury, meaning an injury that affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way. The plaintiff here has failed to do so. A is incorrect because while the subject matter touches on inter-branch relations, the primary jurisdictional defect is the plaintiff's lack of standing, which is a threshold issue. C is incorrect because the problem isn't one of timing (ripeness), but of the nature of the alleged injury itself. D is incorrect because suits against federal officers for injunctive relief are generally not barred by sovereign immunity.

Question 17

Will the court likely find that the legislators have standing? Select one.

Yes, because the governor's action has nullified the effect of their individual votes, which constitutes a particularized injury to their official duties.
Yes, because as elected officials, they have a special duty to ensure the executive branch faithfully executes the law.
No, because the alleged injury is to the power of the legislature as an institution, not a personal injury to the individual legislators. (correct answer)
No, because the dispute is a non-justiciable political question regarding the separation of powers at the state level.

Question 18

A state law prohibits the sale of beer to men under the age of 21 but allows women to purchase beer at age 18. A licensed beer vendor filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the law on equal protection grounds. The state argued that the vendor lacked standing to assert the equal protection rights of 18-to-20-year-old men. The vendor's complaint alleges that the law causes it to suffer economic injury because it loses sales to this demographic.

Does the vendor have standing to challenge the law? Select one.

No, because a vendor cannot assert the constitutional rights of its customers.
No, because the vendor is not a member of the group being discriminated against by the statute.
Yes, because the vendor has suffered its own economic injury as a result of the law's enforcement. (correct answer)
Yes, because the state lacks a rational basis for the gender-based classification.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. A plaintiff has standing if they have suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is traceable to the challenged conduct and redressable by the court. Here, the vendor has suffered a direct economic injury (lost sales) that is directly caused by the challenged law. A favorable ruling would redress this injury by allowing the vendor to sell to the excluded customers. This gives the vendor standing to sue in its own right. While vendors are sometimes permitted to assert the rights of their customers (third-party standing), it is not necessary here because the vendor has its own injury in fact. A and B are incorrect because they ignore the vendor's direct economic injury. D addresses the merits of the equal protection claim, not the threshold issue of standing.

Question 19

A non-profit organization dedicated to advocating for affordable housing filed a lawsuit against a city. The lawsuit challenges a new zoning ordinance that the organization claims will reduce the availability of low-income housing. The organization's complaint alleges that the ordinance has forced it to divert significant resources from its housing counseling programs to a new public education campaign designed to counteract the ordinance's effects. The organization does not claim to represent any specific individuals harmed by the ordinance. The city moved to dismiss.

What is the organization's best argument for establishing standing in its own right? Select one.

The zoning ordinance is directly contrary to the organization's core mission.
The ordinance has caused a concrete and measurable drain on the organization's resources, constituting a direct injury. (correct answer)
The ordinance will harm the low-income residents the organization was formed to serve.
The organization has expertise on housing issues, making it a suitable plaintiff to litigate the ordinance's validity.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. An organization can have standing in its own right (as opposed to associational standing) if it suffers a direct injury. The Supreme Court has recognized that when a defendant's actions force an organization to divert its resources (e.g., money for counseling or education) to counteract those actions, the organization suffers a concrete injury sufficient for standing. A is incorrect because a conflict with an organization's mission is an abstract injury, not a concrete one. C describes an injury to third parties, which would be relevant for associational standing, but the question asks about standing in its own right. D is incorrect because expertise does not confer standing; the plaintiff must have a personal stake in the outcome.

Question 20

On what basis can you most plausibly argue that your client has standing? Select one.

As a citizen, the client has a right to demand that the government operate in a constitutional manner.
The client has standing as a federal taxpayer to challenge a congressional appropriation made under the taxing and spending power that allegedly violates the Establishment Clause. (correct answer)
The client is injured because the government support for religious schools creates unwelcome religious competition for public schools.
The client, as a taxpayer, has a direct financial interest in any expenditure of public funds, regardless of the constitutional provision at issue.