- Here's the relevant Wikipedia entry on the subject.
Legal observers have noticed that the current Supreme Court - the Roberts Court - has been tightening up the concept of standing, making it more difficult for people to prove harm and thereby taking cases to the court.
- Here's the latest along those lines.
It's written with an ideological agenda, the author argues that conservative justices have been trying to make it more difficult for people too use the courts to address grievances. So in addition to filling you in on the concept of standing, this also touches on ideology.
Here's a test of his argument:
Like many conservative judges, Roberts has sought to make it more difficult for people to get the standing to sue in federal court. In 2007, for example, Roberts joined anopinion that held that taxpayers did not have the standing to challenge expenditures by the executive branch that go to religious institutions.
Conservative justices on the supreme court have also narrowed standing in environmental cases. In a 1992 opinion written by Justice Scalia, the court deniedstanding to citizens bringing a lawsuit based on the Endangered Species Act. Vigilant citizens were denied the ability to compel enforcement of the statute in the face of executive inaction.
