DSpace Repository

Abandoning Standing: Trading a Rule of Access for a Rule of Deference

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Murphy, Richard
dc.date.accessioned 2011-03-31T17:09:55Z
dc.date.available 2011-03-31T17:09:55Z
dc.date.issued 2008
dc.identifier.citation 60 Admin. L. Rev. 943 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10601/1338
dc.description.abstract The Supreme Court's long struggle over the nature of constitutional standing has taken on new urgency with the addition of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to the Court. Four justices are now strongly committed to a restrictive approach to standing that invokes separation of powers to bar federal courts from hearing the claims of plaintiffs who assert mere "generalized grievances." These four were just one vote away in Massachusetts v. EPA from blocking judicial review of the legality of EPA's failure to regulate greenhouse gases on the ground that global warming does not cause "particularized" injury. Four justices are strongly committed to a permissive approach that permits widely shared injuries to support standing so long as they are "concrete" enough. And Justice Kennedy's views are somewhere in the middle. This Article uses this 4-1-4 split as an occasion to reexamine constitutional standing and, in particular, its relation to separation of powers. It concludes that neither the restrictive nor the permissive approach to standing can justify reliance on an indeterminate "injury" requirement to create a constitutional bar to judicial access. Nonetheless, the separation-of-powers concerns that motivate the restrictive approach do justify a rule of judicial deference. More specifically, just as Professor Louis Jaffe suggested nearly fifty years ago, these concerns justify a rule that courts should, when resolving "public actions," defer to the reasonable judgments of political branch officials.
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Administrative Law Review
dc.relation.uri http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/admin60&men_hide=false&men_tab=citnav&collection=journals&page=943
dc.relation.uri https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&cite=60+Admin.+L.+Rev.+943
dc.relation.uri http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1273884
dc.subject Standing en_US
dc.subject Procedure en_US
dc.subject Constitutional law en_US
dc.subject Separation of powers
dc.subject Judicial deference
dc.title Abandoning Standing: Trading a Rule of Access for a Rule of Deference en_US
dc.type Article en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record