"Apart from this minimum constitutional mandate, this Court
has recognized other limits on the class of persons who may
invoke the courts' decisional and remedial powers. First,
the Court has held that when the asserted harm is a
"generalized grievance" shared in substantially equal
measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone
normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction. Second, even
when the plaintiff has alleged injury sufficient to meet the
"case or controversy" requirement, this Court has held
that the plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights
and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal
rights or interests of third parties."
Warth v. Seldin 422 U.S. 490 (1975)
"[T]he first and fundamental question is that of
jurisdiction, first, of this court, and then of the court from
which the record comes. This question the court is bound to ask
and answer for itself, even when not otherwise suggested, and
without respect to the relation of the parties to it. The
requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold
matter spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial
power of the United States and is inflexible and without
exception." (citations and quotations omitted)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better
Environment, 523 U. S. 83 (1998)
"In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555,
560–561 (1992), we held that, to satisfy Article
III’s standing requirements, a plaintiff must show (1) it
has suffered an “injury in fact” that is (a)
concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable
to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely,
as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be
redressed by a favorable decision."
Friends of the Earth, Inc. et al. v.
Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000)
"A plaintiff must point to some type of cognizable harm,
whether such harm is physical, economic, reputational,
contractual, or even aesthetic. . . But the injury in fact
test requires more than an injury to a cognizable interest. It
requires that the party seeking review be himself among the
injured.”
Koziara v. City of Casselberry, 392 F.3d
1302 (11th Cir. 2004)