Central to the Article III concept of a case or controversy is the doctrine of standing—that a plaintiff suffered an injury caused by the defendant that courts can redress. In the recent years, the Supreme Court has inspected and clarified this doctrine more than in previous terms. This extends beyond the nebulous concepts of controversial issues or high stakes litigation, to encompass the foundational components of litigation.
Several reasons exist as to why the Court focuses on standing. It serves as an explanation on whether the justices rule or abstain from ruling on a case’s merits due to the standing—or lack thereof—of the parties involved. As expounded by a forthcoming paper written by Professor Taylor Dalton and I, this may also be attributable to the strategic decision-making of the justices. Without standing, the Court has nothing to decide upon, as was demonstrated in Gil v. Whitford.
The modern Supreme Court’s predilection for circumstances related to standing is influenced by numerous factors. One key driver is the ever-shrinking merits docket. The amount of arguments heard in recent years is drastically reduced in comparison to a few decades prior. Some of this downturn has come as a consequence of the Supreme Court Selections Act of 1988, which moved the Court’s jurisdiction to a discretionary docket. This result suggests that the justices may prefer fewer cases, hence the drive to specify the doctrine of standing.
Furthermore, rulings on standing present a narrower approach to tackling a subject relative to dealing with the substantive merits of cases. As observed in recent decisions like dissenting from denial of cert and Masterpiece Cakeshop, focusing on procedural issues allows certain justices to exercise restraint in their involvement with the direction of the law.
The standing doctrine has been clarified in at least 30 cases since 2019, with City of Ocala v. Rojas and Storey v. Lumpkin as notable examples. It is also apparent in more recent cases like 303 Creative.
In conclusion, while the justices are expected to continue clarifying areas concerning standing—such as in the upcoming case, Acheson Hotels v. Laufer—it is important to see how this could shape the direction of future cases.
Read More: Empirical SCOTUS
Author: Adam Feldman, @AdamSFeldman