The "Standing" Doctrine And The White House Ballroom Case

Non-lawyer commenters at this site often express befuddlement at the doctrine in the federal courts known as “standing.”  Where did that come from?  

In practical application, the “standing” doctrine seems like a tool of left-wing control.  Left-wing litigants seeking an expansive role for the government seem to always succeed in establishing this “standing,” and thus they are always granted access to the federal courts to have their claims adjudicated; and if they can find their way to a friendly judge, they can get whatever policies they are challenging of the Trump administration (or other Republican administration) overturned.  Meanwhile, right-wing litigants challenging government actions often get thrown out for lack of “standing.”  How could that be?  

Given the often one-sided application of the standing doctrine, it might be surprising to learn that I think that the doctrine is fundamentally a good thing.  Without it, the situation of judicial overreach could be far worse than it is.  The problem is that so far we have been missing oversight from the top to assure that the standing doctrine gets applied in a neutral manner.  The recent Supreme Court decision in the White House ballroom case (National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation) suggests that we may finally be getting some oversight in this area.

The origin of the “standing” doctrine is not complicated.  It derives from Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.