Landmark Publications

Article III Standing Landmark Publications

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply the doctrine of Article III Standing. * * * To establish its Article III standing, [a plaintiff] must satisfy three requirements. First, it "must have suffered an injury in fact-an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Second, "there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of-the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant."Id. (alterations adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Third, "it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision."Id. at 561 (internal quotation marks omitted). * * * Each element of standing is "an indispensable part of the plaintiff's case" and "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation." Id. "While the proof required to establish standing increases as the suit proceeds, the standing inquiry remains focused on whether the party invoking jurisdiction had the requisite stake in the outcome when the suit was filed." Davis v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 554 U. S. 724, 734 (2008) (citation omitted). * * * To satisfy its burden at the pleading stage, a plaintiff must "clearly allege facts demonstrating each element," Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016) (alteration adopted) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), and we evaluate standing on a motion to dismiss based on the facts alleged in the complaint, Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323, 1335 (11th Cir. 2013). To adequately allege injury in fact, it is not enough that a complaint "'sets forth facts from which we could imagine an injury sufficient to satisfy Article III's standing requirements, ' since 'we should not speculate concerning the existence of standing, nor should we imagine or piece together an injury sufficient to give plaintiff standing when it has demonstrated none.'" Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 976 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. Fla. State Athletic Comm'n, 226 F.3d 1226, 1229-30 (11th Cir. 2000)). "If the plaintiff fails to meet its burden, this court lacks the power to create jurisdiction by embellishing a deficient allegation of injury." Id. Aaron Private Clinic Management LLC v. Berry, (11th Cir. 2019)