Standing and Separation of Powers: "What's It To You?"

 Here is a very nice summary of the Court's standing jurisprudence from Justice Kavanaugh in TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez, 593 U.S. 2190 (2021) (most citations omitted):

The “law of Art. III standing is built on a single basic idea—the idea of separation of powers.” Separation of powers “was not simply an abstract generalization in the minds of the Framers: it was woven into the document that they drafted in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.”

Therefore, we start with the text of the Constitution. Article III confines the federal judicial power to the resolution of “Cases” and “Controversies.” For there to be a case or controversy under Article III, the plaintiff must have a “‘personal stake’” in the case—in other words, standing. To demonstrate their personal stake, plaintiffs must be able to sufficiently answer the question: “‘What’s it to you?’” Scalia, The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers, 17 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 881, 882 (1983).

To answer that question in a way sufficient to establish standing, a plaintiff must show (i) that he suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (ii) that the injury was likely caused by the defendant; and (iii) that the injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief. If “the plaintiff does not claim to have suffered an injury that the defendant caused and the court can remedy, there is no case or controversy for the federal court to resolve.”

Requiring a plaintiff to demonstrate a concrete and par­ticularized injury caused by the defendant and redressable by the court ensures that federal courts decide only “the rights of individuals,” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 170 (1803), and that federal courts exercise “their proper function in a limited and separated government.” Under Article III, federal courts do not adjudicate hypothetical or abstract disputes. Federal courts do not possess a roving commission to publicly opine on every legal question. Federal courts do not exercise gen­eral legal oversight of the Legislative and Executive Branches, or of private entities. And federal courts do not issue advisory opinions. As Madison explained in Philadel­phia, federal courts instead decide only matters “of a Judi­ciary Nature.” 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 430 (M. Farrand ed. 1966). In sum, under Article III, a federal court may resolve only “a real controversy with real impact on real persons.” American Legion v. American Humanist Assn., 588 U. S.