Something we did not cover in our Standing discussion, but consider this an addendum to class.
Art. III addresses the "judicial power of the United States" vested in SCOTUS and inferior courts Congress creates--the "courts of the United States," meaning federal courts. It is silent as to the courts of the states. That means, as with state constitutions generally, states can create their own standing rules, including allowing people to have standing in state court who would not have standing for the identical claim in federal court.
To use one example in the news--Texas municipalities can adopt "abortion trafficking" ordinances allowing "any person," however random or disconnected to the events, to sue someone who uses a particular road to drive a person for an out-of-state abortion. For another example, this decision from a Colorado trial court refusing to dismiss a lawsuit brought by some voters seeking to keep Donald Trump off the state ballot under § 3 of the 14th Amendment. No one challenged standing, which was granted by state law. This contrasts with the federal cases (cited in the opinion) from 2008 by voters trying to sue to keep Barack Obama off state ballots because he was not a natural-born citizen; all rejected standing.
So states get to set their own rules. Many (including Florida) follow Article III. Others (Texas and California are notable) enable much broader private enforcement, especially for environmental and consumer-protection laws.
Here is one more question to consider, looping standing back to SCOTUS jurisdiction: The Colorado lawsuit will address federal issues--the scope and meaning of § 3; any lawsuit under a Texas ordinance will trigger federal defenses of the right to travel and probably First Amendment. In an ordinary state-law action, SCOTUS can review the final decision of the state supreme court following review through the state-court system. But SCOTUS is an Article III court, meaning it requires a case-or-controversy that meets Article III requirements, particularly injury-in-fact.
Nevertheless, the Court has held that it can exercise appellate jurisdiction and review the federal issues in this situation (state-court judgment on federal issues in a case that would have lacked standing in a federal district court). How do you suppose it reached that conclusion--where is the Article-III satisfying injury? You are welcome to research it and write it as an email to me (to be posted here) or as a reaction paper for your panel.
