TAILIEUCHUNG - Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 9 P35

Gale Encyclopedia of American Law Volume 9 P35 fully illuminates today's leading cases, major statutes, legal terms and concepts, notable persons involved with the law, important documents and more. Legal issues are fully discussed in easy-to-understand language, including such high-profile topics as the Americans with Disabilities Act, capital punishment, domestic violence, gay and lesbian rights, physician-assisted suicide and thousands more. | 328 STANDING The standing doctrine is derived from the . Constitution s Article III provision that federal courts have the power to hear cases arising under federal law and controversies involving certain types of parties. In the most fundamental application of the philosophy of judicial restraint the . supreme court has interpreted this language to forbid the rendering of advisory opinions. once a federal court determines that a real case or controversy exists it must then ascertain whether the parties to the litigation have standing. The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong. Most standing issues arise over the enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional statute ordinance or policy. one may challenge a law or policy on constitutional grounds if he can show that enforcement of the law or implementation of the policy infringes on an individual constitutional right such as freedom of speech. For example in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District 393 . 503 89 S. Ct. 733 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 1969 high school officials in Des Moines Iowa had suspended students for wearing black armbands to school to protest . involvement in the Vietnam war. There was no question that the parents of the students had standing to challenge the restrictions on the wearing of armbands. Mere ideological opposition to a particular government policy such as the . involvement in the Vietnam war however is not sufficient grounds to challenge that policy in court. A significant economic injury or burden is sufficient to provide standing to sue but in most situations a taxpayer does not have standing to challenge policies or programs that she is forced to support. In .