Standing (adequate stake in the controversy)
1.  C’al requirements:  invasion of a legally protected interest
(economic, aesthetic, etc)
a.  injury in fact
i.    concrete and particularized
ii.   actual or imminent
iii.  can’t be merely speculative or hypothetical
iv.  can’t be psychological
-    must be proper D:  the party seeking standing must himself
have suffered injury
b.  causal connection btwn injury & challenged conduct (correct D)
i.  Singleton v. Wulf:  stopping the Dr’s from giving abortions will
not redress the injury
ii.  proper D is the state agency not enforcing medicare laws and
allowing Dr’s to get medicare money for performing abortions
iii. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife:  didn’t actually plan to go back
to spots where the crocodiles were, so no actual injury (not
concrete)
c.  likely injury will be redressed
i.  Allen v. Wright
A.  IRS didn’t deny 501(c)3 exemption to discriminatory school
B.  held:  since parents hadn’t actually sought admission (and been
denied) => no injury in fact; only psycho
C.  redress?  taking away schools tax-break will only speculatively
lead to more white kids going to public school [no link btwn injury
and requested relief]
ii.  Duke Power
A.  Price Anderson Act limited liability for nuclear waste
B.  P’s living near Duke Power sued that Act was unC’al; said if PA
Act killed => Duke Power will close
C.  held:  too speculative [Guinn says not ripe, yet]