Standing

On the MBE, the tell is a plaintiff who is clearly angry but not personally hurt — a taxpayer challenging federal spending (barred since Frothingham), a voter alleging only that the government broke the law (a generalized grievance), or an organization suing for a member. The answer usually hinges on which prong fails: most wrong-plaintiff patterns die on injury-in-fact (no concrete, particularized harm), while regulator-and-third-party setups die on causation or redressability because the injury traces to someone not before the court. For associational standing, an organization sues only if a member would have standing, the interest is germane to its purpose, and individual member participation isn’t required (Hunt).

The classic trap conflates standing with jurisdiction: standing tests whether this plaintiff may sue, while jurisdiction tests the court’s power over the claim or the parties. It is also distinct from the pleadings plausibility standard — a well-pleaded complaint still falls if injury is missing. After TransUnion v. Ramirez (2021), a bare statutory violation or mere risk of future harm is not concrete injury.