•  
  •  
 

Hastings Law Journal

Abstract

Two recent United States Supreme Court cases on standing, Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War and United States v. Richardson, emphasize that a plaintiff does not have standing unless he has suffered a tangible and concrete injury. This note analyzes these cases and argues that the requirement of a concrete injury is inappropriate when a plaintiff challenges a violation of a statute or constitutional provision which was designed specifically to protect against intangible harm. The author suggests alternative standing guidelines which could help resolve this problem and other uncertainties in the law of standing.

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS