3 ms·

Is it more accurate to say that the Supreme Court interpreted the law and the law makes this acceptable?

• btilly 13y ago
  By my non-lawyerly understanding, no. The question of when standing to sue exists is a question of common law, not statutory law. Had they decided that standing exists, then they would have had opportunity to rule on the law itself.
  • dragonwriter 13y ago
    > The question of when standing to sue exists is a question of common law, not statutory law. Standing has both Constitutional elements and prudential elements (the latter could be referred to as "common law"); the actual injury element is Constitutional, but the prohibition on generalized rather than particular injury is prudential. Here, a particularized injury is raised but the problem is that the injury is speculative rather than actual, so the problem would be with Constitutional requirements for standing, not the prudential elements.