Standing rules require a financial stake and gatekeep who may challenge agency action

Evidence

To have standing (the right to complain), the complainant usually has to show a financial stake—​the drug company blocked by the FDA is an obvious example. But if the Department of the Interior decides to let Hilton Hotels build a lodge in Yellowstone National Park, can I complain in court (or in the agency) because I backpack and bird­ watch in Yellowstone? Probably not; I have no standing. Using or liking or enjoying Yellowstone is not enough. Rules of standing are complicated; as they broaden or nar­ row, the scope of judicial review broadens and narrows in turn. For a while, during the reformation of administrative law in the 1960s and 1970s, federal courts began to apply more liberal rules about standing; they were willing to stretch a point to allow groups that represented “the public” to intervene in decisions, even though they had no financial stake. This opened the door to conservation groups that opposed power plants, and to church groups or just plain viewers who complained about the policies of some TV sta­ tion. In the 1980s and 1990s, the courts tightened up somewhat; as one judge, Richard Posner, put it in 1991, plaintiffs would be “tripping over each other on the way to the courthouse if everyone remotely injured by a violation of law could sue to redress it.” — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law, 604

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the crucial concept of ‘standing’ with a concrete Yellowstone example that makes it memorable.
• QUESTION: The environmental-justice thread of the polyad would want more on how standing rules historically excluded or included poor/communities-of-color plaintiffs — worth chasing in the course readings.
• XREF: connects to: Chevron deference made courts side with agencies about three-quarters of the time — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law: An Introduction, 611; Civil-service protections that insulate agencies also breed timid rule-following bureaucrats — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law: An Introduction, 616