This Article, prepared for the Case Western Reserve Law Review symposium on “Access to the Courts in the Roberts Era,” offers a preliminary look at the standing jurisprudence of the Roberts Court. Contrary to claims made by some Court commentators, the Roberts Court has not tightened the requirements for Article III standing. To the contrary, insofar as the Roberts Court has altered the law of standing, it has made it easier for at least some litigants to pursue their claims in federal court. The Court’s decisions denying standing have largely reaffirmed prior holdings. By comparison, some of the Court’s decisions on standing, most notably Massachusetts v. EPA and, to a lesser extent, Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services Inc., have lowered the standing bar, perhaps quite significantly. Whatever else has transpired with regard to citizen “access to federal courts” in the first four years of the Roberts Court, standing for citizens to invoke the jurisdiction of federal courts remains in place.
Standing, Robert’s Court, United States Supreme Court, Access to Justice, Article III, Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497 (27), Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 129 S. Ct. 1142 (29), Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, 127 S. Ct. 2553 (27), Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services
Place of Original Publication
Case Western Reserve Law Review
59 Case Western Reserve Law Review 1061 (2009)
Adler, Jonathan H., "Standing Still in the Roberts Court (Panel)" (2009). Faculty Publications. 31.