||It has been suggested that Third-party standing be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since October 2015.|
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)(Learn how and when to remove this template message)
In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes:
- The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the "something to lose" doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
- The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine.
- The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive attorney's fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.
In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law.
- 1 International courts
- 2 Canada
- 3 United Kingdom
- 4 Australia
- 5 United States
- 6 Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- 6.1 May 17, 2016
- 6.2 October 22, 2015
- 6.3 April 28, 2015
- 6.4 January 26, 2015
- 6.5 November 21, 2014
- 6.6 July 29, 2014
- 6.7 July 04, 2014
- 6.8 January 6, 2014
- 6.9 December 31, 2013
- 6.10 October 30, 2013
- 6.11 August 19, 2013
- 6.12 December 4, 2012
- 6.13 September 12, 2012
- 6.14 July 26, 2010
- 6.15 June 9, 2010
- 6.16 March 23, 2010
- 6.17 March 23, 2010
- 6.18 March 23, 2010
- 6.19 March 23, 2010
- 7 See also
- 8 References
- 9 External links
In Canadian administrative law, whether an individual has standing to bring an application for judicial review, or an appeal from the decision of a tribunal, is governed by the language of the particular statute under which the application or the appeal is brought. Some statutes provide for a narrow right of standing while others provide for a broader right of standing.
Frequently a litigant wishes to bring a civil action for a declaratory judgment against a public body or official. This is considered an aspect of administrative law, sometimes with a constitutional dimension, as when the litigant seeks to have legislation declared unconstitutional.
Public interest standing
The Supreme Court of Canada developed the concept of public interest standing in three constitutional cases commonly called "the Standing trilogy": Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, and Minister of Justice v. Borowski. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):
It has been seen that when public interest standing is sought, consideration must be given to three aspects. First, is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation in question? Second, has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected by the legislation or if not does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity? Third, is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the court?
Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found in Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance).
In British administrative law, the applicant needs to have a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates. This sufficient interest requirement has been construed liberally by the courts. As Lord Diplock put it:
"[i]t would...be a grave danger to escape lacuna in our system of public law if a pressure group...or even a single public spirited taxpayer, were prevented by outdated technical rules of locus standi from bringing the matter to the attention of the court to vindicate the rule of law and get the unlawful conduct stopped."
||This section possibly contains original research. (February 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
Australia has a Common law understanding of locus standi or standing which is expressed in statutes such as the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and common law decisions of the High Court of Australia especially the case Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (1980). The test for Standing is: 1. Do the party have special interest in the matter.
. Is that interest too distant?
Standing may apply to class of aggrieved people where, essentially the closeness of the plaintiff to the subject matter is the test.
Furthermore, a plaintiff must show that he or she has been specially affected in comparison with the public at large.
Also, while there is no open standing per se, Prerogative writs like certiorari, writ of prohibition, Quo warranto and habeas corpus have a low burden in establishing standing.
Australian Courts also recognise amicus curiae (friend of the court),. and the various Attorneys Generals have a presumed standing in Administrative Law cases.
|United States Federal
Civil Procedure doctrines
In United States law, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated, "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues."
There are a number of requirements that a plaintiff must establish to have standing before a federal court. Some are based on the case or controversy requirement of the judicial power of Article Three of the United States Constitution, § 2, cl.1. As stated there, "The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases . . .[and] to Controversies . . ." The requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue is a limit on the role of the judiciary and the law of Article III standing is built on the idea of separation of powers. Federal courts may exercise power only "in the last resort, and as a necessity".
The American doctrine of standing is assumed as having begun with the case of Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923). But legal standing truly rests its first prudential origins in Fairchild v. Hughes, (1922) which was authored by Justice Brandeis. In Fairchild, a citizen sued the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to challenge the procedures by which the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified. Prior to it the doctrine was that all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right. Since then the doctrine has been embedded in judicial rules and some statutes.
In 2011, in Bond v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant has standing to challenge the federal statute he or she is charged with violating as being unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.
There are three standing requirements:
- Injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract). The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.
- Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
- Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.
Additionally, there are three major prudential (judicially created) standing principles. Congress can override these principles via statute:
- Prohibition of Third-party standing: A party may only assert his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of a third party who is not before the court; exceptions exist where the third party has interchangeable economic interests with the injured party, or a person unprotected by a particular law sues to challenge the oversweeping of the law into the rights of others. For example, a party suing over a law prohibiting certain types of visual material, may sue because the 1st Amendment rights of theirs, and others engaged in similar displays, might be damaged.
Additionally, third parties who do not have standing may be able to sue under the next friend doctrine if the third party is an infant, mentally handicapped, or not a party to a contract. One example of a statutory exception to the prohibition of third party standing exists in the qui tam provision of the Civil False Claims Act.
- Prohibition of generalized grievances: A plaintiff cannot sue if the injury is widely shared in an undifferentiated way with many people. For example, the general rule is that there is no federal taxpayer standing, as complaints about the spending of federal funds are too remote from the process of acquiring them. Such grievances are ordinarily more appropriately addressed in the representative branches.
- Zone of interest test: There are in fact two tests used by the United States Supreme Court for the zone of interest
Recent development of the doctrine
In 1984, the Supreme Court reviewed and further outlined the standing requirements in a major ruling concerning the meaning of the three standing requirements of injury, causation, and redressability.
In the suit, parents of black public school children alleged that the Internal Revenue Service was not enforcing standards and procedures that would deny tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not have the standing necessary to bring suit. Although the Court established a significant injury for one of the claims, it found the causation of the injury (the nexus between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s injuries) to be too attenuated. "The injury alleged was not fairly traceable to the Government conduct respondents challenge as unlawful".
In another major standing case, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court elaborated on the redressability requirement for standing. The case involved a challenge to a rule promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior interpreting §7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The rule rendered §7 of the ESA applicable only to actions within the United States or on the high seas. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not have the standing necessary to bring suit, because no injury had been established. The injury claimed by the plaintiffs was that damage would be caused to certain species of animals and that this in turn injures the plaintiffs by the reduced likelihood that the plaintiffs would see the species in the future. The court insisted though that the plaintiffs had to show how damage to the species would produce imminent injury to the plaintiffs. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not sustain this burden of proof. "The 'injury in fact' test requires more than an injury to a cognizable interest. It requires that the party seeking review be himself among the injured". The injury must be imminent and not hypothetical.
Beyond failing to show injury, the Court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the standing requirement of redressability. The Court pointed out that the respondents chose to challenge a more generalized level of Government action, "the invalidation of which would affect all overseas projects". This programmatic approach has "obvious difficulties insofar as proof of causation or redressability is concerned".
In a 2000 case, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000), the United States Supreme Court endorsed the "partial assignment" approach to qui tam relator standing to sue under the False Claims Act — allowing private individuals to sue on behalf of the U.S. government for injuries suffered solely by the government.
The initial case that established the doctrine of standing, Frothingham v. Mellon, was a taxpayer standing case.
Taxpayer standing is the concept that any person who pays taxes should have standing to file a lawsuit against the taxing body if that body allocates funds in a way that the taxpayer feels is improper. The United States Supreme Court has held that taxpayer standing is not by itself a sufficient basis for standing against the United States government, unless the narrower Flast test is met. The Court has consistently found that the conduct of the federal government is too far removed from individual taxpayer returns for any injury to the taxpayer to be traced to the use of tax revenues, e.g., United States v. Richardson.
In DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, the Court extended this analysis to state governments as well. However, the Supreme Court has also held that taxpayer standing is constitutionally sufficient to sue a municipal government in a federal court.
States are also protected against lawsuits by their sovereign immunity. Even where states waive their sovereign immunity, they may nonetheless have their own rules limiting standing against simple taxpayer standing against the state. Furthermore, states have the power to determine what will constitute standing for a litigant to be heard in a state court, and may deny access to the courts premised on taxpayer standing alone.
In Florida, a taxpayer has standing to sue if the state government is acting unconstitutionally with respect to public funds, or if government action is causing some special injury to the taxpayer that is not shared by taxpayers in general. In Virginia, the Supreme Court of Virginia has more or less adopted a similar rule. An individual taxpayer generally has standing to challenge an act of a city or county where they live, but does not have general standing to challenge state expenditures.
Standing to challenge statutes
With limited exceptions, a party cannot have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute unless they will be subjected to the provisions of that statute. There are some exceptions, however, e.g. courts will accept First Amendment challenges to a statute on overbreadth grounds, where a person who is only partially affected by a statute can challenge parts that do not affect them on the grounds that laws that restrict speech have a chilling effect on other people's right to free speech.
The only other way someone can have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute is if the existence of the statute would otherwise deprive them of a right or a privilege even if the statute itself would not apply to them. The Virginia Supreme Court made this point clear in the case of Martin v. Ziherl 607 S.E.2d 367 (Va. 2005). Martin and Ziherl were girlfriend and boyfriend and engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse when Martin discovered that Ziherl had infected her with herpes, even though he knew he was infected and did not inform her of this. She sued him for damages, but because (at the time the case was filed) it was illegal to commit "fornication" (sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not married), Ziherl argued that Martin could not sue him because joint tortfeasors - those involved in committing a crime - cannot sue each other over acts occurring as a result of a criminal act (Zysk v. Zysk, 404 S.E.2d 721 (Va. 1990)). Martin argued in rebuttal that because of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas (finding that state's sodomy law unconstitutional), Virginia's anti-fornication law was also unconstitutional for the reasons cited in Lawrence. Martin argued, therefore, she could, in fact, sue Ziherl for damages.
Lower courts decided that because the Commonwealth's Attorney doesn't prosecute fornication cases and no one had been prosecuted for fornication anywhere in Virginia in over 100 years, Martin had no risk of prosecution and thus lacked standing to challenge the statute. Martin appealed. Since Martin has something to lose - the ability to sue Ziherl for damages - if the statute is upheld, she had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute even though the possibility of her being prosecuted for violating it was zero. And since the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence has found that there is a privacy right in one's private, noncommercial sexual practices, the Virginia Supreme Court decided that the statute against fornication was unconstitutional. The finding gave Martin standing to sue Ziherl since the decision in Zysk is no longer applicable.
However, the only reason Martin had standing to challenge the statute was that she had something to lose if it stayed on the books.
In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court ruled that being the proponents of a ballot measure is not by itself enough to confer legal standing. In that case, Proposition 8 had banned same-sex marriage in California, a ban that was ruled unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that the proponents of Proposition 8 has no standing in court since they failed to show that they were harmed by the decision.
State law on standing differs substantially from federal law and varies considerably from state to state.
On December 29, 2009, the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District ruled that California Code of Civil Procedure Section 367 cannot be read as imposing a federal-style standing doctrine on California's code pleading system of civil procedure. In California, the fundamental inquiry is always whether the plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff has some entitlement to judicial action separate from proof of the substantive merits of the claim advanced. The court acknowledged that the word "standing" is often sloppily used to refer to what is really jus tertii, and held that jus tertii in state law is not the same thing as the federal standing doctrine.
Legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Since the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the legality of the legislation The information below tries to describe the legal challenges by date and case number of every case mounted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Format is date, case number, court, Constitutional Challenge [Y/N] All references should include date filed, actual government case number designations and status.
May 17, 2016
On May 17, 2016, (1:16-cv-00587) United States Court of Federal Claims District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [N] Highmark Inc., First Priority Life Insurance Company et al v. United States The case challenges if Obama can decline to pay via the Health Insurance Risk Corridors programs in violation of Tucker Act 223 million dollars.
October 22, 2015
On October 22, 2015, (7:15-cv-00151) United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Constitutional Challenge [Y] Texas, Kansasand the State of Loisiana. v. US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Burwell et al. The case challenges if the federal government can tax States via the Health Insurance Providers Fee programs in violation of the federal medicaid law.
April 28, 2015
On April 28, 2015, (3:15-cv-00193-RS-CJK) United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Constitutional Challenge [N] Rick Scott and the State of Florida. et al v. US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Burwell et al. The case challenges if the federal government can coerce States into dramatically expanding their Medicaid programs in violation of the Supreme Court ruling held just three years ago that the Constitution prohibits it from doing. The government is threatening to cut off federal funding for unrelated programs unless they "agree" to do so by expanding Medicaid programs via Obamacare.
January 26, 2015
On January 26, 2015, (2:15-cv-00321-ALM-NMK) United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Constitutional Challenge [Y]The State of Ohio. et al v. United States of America. Attorney General Mike DeWine on behalf of the state of Ohio et al challenges the "Transitional Reinsurance Program" of the ACA of 2010 to collect mandatory monetary "contributions" from State and local governments. 
November 21, 2014
On November 21, 2014, (1:14-cv-01967-RMC)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. The United States House of Representatives v. Burwell,et al was filed by the House of Representatives which challenges the "Payment of Funds to insurance companies" and other constitutional violations of the law. Jonathan Turley acted as the lawyer for this lawsuit and was paid by a contract with the House of Representatives . He is the third lawyer hired to do the lawsuit, since the first 2 lawyers dropped out due to political or other conflicts. As of May 29, 2015 the question of valid “standing” still had not been determined. On May 12, 2016 U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled against the government use of funds to pay insurers. She also stayed her ruling to allow the administration an opportunity to appeal.
July 29, 2014
On July 29, 2014, (1:14-cv-01287-RBW)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. The State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al was filed by the office of Attorney General Patrick Morrisey which challenges the "Administrative Fix" and other constitutional violations of the law. State of West Virginia has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant (HHS) has requested an extension of time to respond until October 17, 2014. In April the AG office of Patrick Morrisey filed a motion for a ruling on Summary Judgment. On October 30, 2015 the case was dismissed. Notice of Appeal was filed on November 6, 2015, the same day the Supreme Court of the United States decided it will review the Contraceptive mandate of Obamacare by combining 7 similar challenges to the contraceptive mandate. The case is titled Zubik v. Burwell and the 6 other challenges include Priests for Life v. Burwell, Southern Nazarene University v. Burwell, Geneva College v. Burwell, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Burwell, East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell and Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell. 
July 04, 2014
On July 4, 2014, (1:14-cv-01143-RBW)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. American Freedom Law Center, v. Obama et al was filed by the American Freedom Law Center which challenges that Obama has violated his constitutional duty to “faithfully execute” the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The State of West Virginia and Patrick Morrisey have filed a notice of related case on July 29, 2014. On June 3, 2015 a notice of appeal was filed
January 6, 2014
On January 6, 2014(1:14-cv-00009-WCG/14-2723), United States District Court Eastern District Of Wisconsin, Constitutional Challenge [N] Senator Ron Johnson & Brooke Ericson v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, et al. challenged that the government violates Section 1312(d)(3)(D), which was passed so Members of Congress and their staffs would be subject to the ACA in the same way as constituents and not get extra subsidies. 38 lawmakers joined the lawsuit by the senator. The court ruled the Senator did not have standing and dismissed the case. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago said Johnson also lacked legal standing by a unanimous three-judge panel in April 2015.
December 31, 2013
On December 31, 2013, (1:13-cv-02066-CKK/14-5183) United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Cutler v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. Cutler challenges the constitutionality of the Act, both on its face and as applied to him and his constituents. Cutler asserts that the provision requiring individuals to obtain health insurance coverage or face monetary penalties violates the religion clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and a previous Supreme Court Decision, "1947 Everson v Board of Education", and allows the government to favor one religion over another religion. The process of empowering the United States Government to Certify that applicable individual is part of EXEMPT RELIGION or SECT, Cutler seeks a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable. Cutler also seeks to "rollback" the law to the status it had prior to 2014 on various grounds, arguing that the law NOW violates the Constitution by allowing unequal protection under the law.(If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your PLAN till October 1, 2016, but only if the insurance commissioner of your state agrees with the president). Notice of Appeal was filed on July 25, 2014. On August 11, 2014 a notice of related case was filed for the case of State of West Virginia v United States HHS,et al (1:14-cv-01287-RBW). Lawyers David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise from the American Freedom Law Center are handling the appeal. On October 16, 2014 an injunction pending appeal was filed based on "unequal treatment under the law". Oral argumentss by Robert Muise May 12, 2015 of the American Freedom Law Center. The American Freedom Law Center also represents Pamela Geller. The event sponsored by Pamela Geller was attacked by 2 terrorists on May 4, 2015 in Garland Texas. C, a free speech rally outside the Phoenix mosque allegedly attended by Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, the two gunmen who were killed at the Garland, Texas, event hosted by Pamela Geller. On August 14, 2015 the DC court of appeals reversed the lower court on standing to sue over violations of the establishment clause, but stated essentially that since Social Security is legal the ACA is legal. On November 11, 2015 a petition was filed at the Supreme Court for the case [15-632]. On January 11, 2016 the Supreme Court announced it will decline to hear the case, even though the United States Government declined to respond to the petition. 
October 30, 2013
On October 30, 2013, (1:13-cv-01214-WCG/14-2123). United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and Robert T. McQueeney, MD v IRS. On September 22, 2014, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed a Wisconsin federal judge's decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed last October by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., and Robert T. McQueeney, who treat patients on a cash basis, and want to prevent everyone from being required to be covered by health insurance. The plaintiffs had sought an injunction blocking the IRS from collecting the penalty in 2014, on the argument that it would violate the Tenth Amendment and separation of powers.
August 19, 2013
On August 19, 2013, (1:13-cv-01261-EGS) United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Priests for Life v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. Father Frank Pavone and others through their lawyers, the American Freedom Law Center challenges the constitutionality of the law requiring organizations to provide health insurance which provides coverage for contraceptive methods that they feel violates their religious freedom or face monetary penalties violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The case was part of the newest Supreme Court challenge to the Contraceptive mandate of Obamacare called Zubik v. Burwell. The case ended with all appeals court decisions vacated and all 7 cases being sent back to district court by an 8 to 0 decision in the Supreme Court.
December 4, 2012
On December 4, 2012 (12-cv-06744/13-1144)United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Constitutional Challenge [N]., Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation et al v. Sebelius et al was filed which challenged regulations by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception which violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This amounted to an objection to 4 out of over 19 types of contraception. Case lost but was eventually combined with Hobby Lobby case and sent to the Supreme Court as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. The Supreme Court found in favor of the company.
September 12, 2012
On September 12, 2012 (12-CV-01000-HE/12-6294), United States District Court For The Western District Of Oklahoma, Constitutional Challenge [N] Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc et al v. Sebelius et al was filed which challenged regulations by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception which violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This amounted to an objection to 4 out of over 19 types of contraception. Case won but was eventually combined with Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation case and sent to the Supreme Court as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. The Supreme Court found in favor of the company.
July 26, 2010
On July 26, 2010, (1:10-cv-01263-RJL/13-5202)United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Sissel v United States HHS,et al was filed which challenges the "Individual Mandate" and other constitutional violations of the law. The case was amended to challenge the constitutionality as a violation of the "Origination Clause" of the constitution . On July 29, 2014 the court rejected plaintiff's argument that the fact that Section 5000A may have been enacted solely pursuant to the taxing power brought it within the ambit of the Origination Clause, noting that many exercises of taxing power have a primary purpose other than raising of revenue and thus are not governed by the Origination Clause at all.
June 9, 2010
On June 9, 2010, (1:10-cv-00950-GK/11-5047) United States District Court for the District of Columbia Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Mead v. Holder, Margaret Peggy Lee Mead and four other individuals, On March 11, 2011 Margaret Peggy Lee Mead withrew from the case and it became Seven-Sky v. Holder. Susan Seven-Sky became the lead plaintiff in the case. The American Center for Law & Justice ("ACLJ") represented the plaintiffs. The case was eventually heard by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court found in favor of the government.
March 23, 2010
On March 23, 2010, (6:10-cv-00015-nkmb/10-2347)United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Liberty University, et al. v Timothy Geithner, et al was filed which challenges the "the requirement to have insurance that will pay for elective abortion" and violation of Article I and the First, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Appeal was started August 6, 2013
March 23, 2010
On March 23, 2010(3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT)United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida Constitutional Challenge [Y]Florida et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 20 states (a figure that grew to 26 states following the mid-term elections), the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), and two uninsured individuals similarly argue that the individual requirement to purchase health insurance coverage exceeds the authority granted to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. The Florida suit also challenges other provisions of the law, including the tax penalty associated with the individual requirement, the Medicaid expansions and the establishment of state health insurance exchanges, the insurance market reforms, and the employer responsibility provisions of the ACA.
March 23, 2010
On March 23, 2010(3:10-cv-00188/HEH) United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Constitutional Challenge [Y]Commonwealth of Virginia, Kenneth Cuccinelli v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al. In Commonwealth of VA v. Sebelius, Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli argues that Congress exceeded its Constitutional authority granted to it under the U.S. Constitution by requiring individuals to maintain health insurance. In addition, Attorney General Cuccinelli argues that because the federal law is an unlawful exercise of congressional authority, the law violates Virginia’s sovereignty because it invalidates a Virginia law protecting individuals from being forced to purchase health insurance.
March 23, 2010
On March 23, 2010, (2:10-cv-11156-GCS/RSW/10-2388)United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Constitutional Challenge [Y]. Thomas More Law Center, et al. v Barack Hussein Obama, United States HHS,et al was filed by Robert Muise and Richard Thompson, which challenges the "Individual Mandate" and other constitutional violations of the law. Lawyers Robert Muise and David Yerushalmi became the lawyers of record on the case for the plaintiffs. On October 21, 2010 the court rejected plaintiff's arguments. This is considered the first legal challenge to Obamacare
- Merit (legal)
- Actio popularis
- List of United States Supreme Court cases involving standing
- Lee, Evan; Mason Ellis, Josephine (December 3, 2012). "The Standing Doctrine's Dirty Little Secret". Northwestern Law Review 107: 169.
- Smith, Rhona K. M., Textbook on International Human Rights. 4th Edition. 2010.
- For example, under s. 18(1) the Federal Court Act, an application for review may be made by "anyone directly affected by the matter in respect of which the relief is sought".
- Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General),  1 S.C.R. 138.
- Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil,  2 S.C.R. 265.
- Minister of Justice v. Borowski,  2 S.C.R. 575.
- Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),  1 S.C.R. 236
- Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance),  2 S.C.R. 607 .
- Senior Courts Act 1981 s.31(3).
- Inland Revenue Commissioners Appellants v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. Respondents  A.C. 617.
- Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493 AustLii 
- combett v commonwealth(2005).
- Williams v Commonwealth (2012) 288 ALR 410
- Right to Life v The Secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health and Family Planning Victoria Inc  FCA 1362 2
- Re McBain; Ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (2002) 209 CLR 372.
- Ruddock v Valaris (2001)(tampa case)
- STANDING IN PUBLIC INTEREST CASES, Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House Incorporated
- Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (1980)
- Sinclair v Marybourough Mining Warden (1975)
- Justice Brian J Preston,Standing to Sue at Common Law in Australia.
- Onus v Alcoa
- By M.R.L.L Kelly, Administrative Law Law Briefs (Pearson Education Australia, 2009),
- see Transurban v Allan (1999)
- See also Truth about Motorways v Macquarie (2007)
- See also Ogle v Strickland (1986) 13 FCR 306
- Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1981)194 CLR 27 AUSTLII
- re Smith; Exparte Rundle (1991) WAR295
- Truth about Motorways v Macquarie (2007)
- Ruddock v Valaris (2001)(Tampa case)
- US tobacco v Minister for Consumer Affairs(1988) 20 FCR 520.
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 752 (1984).
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 752 (1984).
- The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance, by Steven L. Winter, 40 Stan. L. Rev. 1371, July, 1988.
- For example, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (global warming caused by EPA's refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions satisfied element of causation for Massachusetts's alleged injury of loss of coastland).
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).
- Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000)
- Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998).
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984).
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. at 752 (1984).
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. at 755 (1984).
- Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. at 757 (1984).
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 562.
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 564.
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 563.
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 568.
- Text of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens
- Nathan D. Sturycz, The King and I?: An Examination of the Interest Qui Tam Relators Represent and the Implications for Future False Claims Act Litigation, 28 St. Louis Pub. L. Rev. 459 (2009), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1537749. For the general standing rule, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
- Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968).
- 547 U.S. 332 (2006).
- Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.), 180 Cal. App. 4th 980 (2009).
- http://www.post-gazette.com/business/healthcare- business/2016/05/17/Highmark-takes-government-to-court-over-Obamacare-losses/stories/201605170204
- https://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/house-v-burwell-d-d-c-complaint- filed.pdf
- "U.S. senator sues over healthcare subsidy for Congress". Reuters. January 6, 2014.
- "Appeals Court Rejects GOP Senator's Obamacare Challenge". Huffington Post. April 14, 2015.
- O'Keefe, Ed (April 22, 2014). "38 GOP lawmakers join Ron Johnson's Obamacare lawsuit". The Washington Post.
- "Terror attack in Garland, Texas, had ties overseas". CNN.
- "Garland, Texas, gunmen left terror trail on Internet before opening fire on police". CBS News. May 6, 2015.
- http://www.forbes.com/sites/m. Missing or empty
- The Wall Street Journal (PDF) http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/102110TMLCdismissal.pdf. Missing or empty