Locus standi ("legal standing to sue")

In really general terms --

If you don't have standing, you weren't harmed. If you weren't harmed, what are you suing for? Why should you get damages? The victim(s) would be entitled to damages, not you. So why aren't they suing?

The victims can sue if they like. Even if you planned to give the damages over to them, why why should you be able to sue on their behalf? Maybe they have a reason they don't want to sue. Maybe they don't want to appear in court. Why should you be able to drag them in there?

If someone broke a criminal law, individuals don't bring charges -- prosecutors do. So report the crime and let the state do its work.

Do you have a particular example in mind of a situation where someone doesn't have standing and yet you feel they should be able to sue?

I guess I'm thinking of cases like when public schools hold religious prayers during school activities. or a governmental agency posts the 10 Commandments or does something else overtly religious and an outside group wants to sue to get them to stop, and sometimes the case gets thrown out because the group lacks standing.

As in, well, the school can continue to openly break the law until an atheist, Jew, Muslim, etc. enrolls and files suit.

I'm also thinking about Trump's alleged ethical and legal violations of business-related conflicts of interest laws (as laid out in the Code of Federal Regulations). There are groups who are suing and/or want to sue over this, but some are having to ensure that they can prove standing first.

To me, such a thing shouldn't matter in these types of cases (including the church-state separation cases) because they are blatantly breaking a law. To dismiss them due to that is, to me, akin to not enforcing or even caring about traffic laws unless someone gets killed.

Maybe the laws for bringing action in these cases should be changed to say that petitioners who lack direct standing can still win but not be entitled to damages.

Well, I can think of a current example: Trump's EO (really, EOs, the first one and the re-done one) that temporarily bans immigration from certain countries.

States filed lawsuits for TROs, based on the idea that they would suffer harm and the issue of standing is/was critical in these cases.

Have meant to come back to this, but have been way busy today. Still am, so this will be quick and dirty.

Besides the damages issue -- let's just say, for the sake of argument, you want to get an injunction stopping the defendant's illegal behavior:

1) having a plaintiff who actually has a stake in the case ensures that the proper facts get before the court so they can be properly weighed. What if the plaintiffs who don't have a stake lose, for lack of the court having the best case in front of them? The real plaintiffs are going to be hamstrung by that decision.

Also, people who have a genuine stake are going to be more likely to pursue the case with the vigor required, be possessed of the facts needed to do so, and he'll, have a sympathetic case, which certainly never hurts. It ain't just about the law, you know -- facts matter.

B) there's a separation of powers issue. I'll attach a whole law review article on that (penned by Scalia) as soon as I figure out how, if you are interested, but here's a nutshell snippet:



III) letting any old Tom or Mary sue when they have no stake and no injury would a great recipe for chaos and overloaded courts. Let's say Opty is a genuine ly injured person. But hey, Rob, who has no stake at all, got in there first, and his case is halfway through. What, Opty files another one? Again, it could cripple the case of the person with a genuine injury.


ETA:

It's a PDF and I can't figure out how to attach it. Cite is 17 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 881 (1983) The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers . You can find it pretty easily with a Google search.

(Sorry, am doing this on the fly on my phone.)

No respect, I'm telling you. I get no respect.