This legal concept achieved its most expansive definition in the Supreme Court case U.S. v. SCRAP, in which a group of GWU Law students challenged the Interstate Commerce Commission's proposed rail freight rate increase on the ground that it would impede recycling. In Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, this legal concept negated the challenge to using a tax credit to finance re
This legal concept achieved its most expansive definition in the Supreme Court case U.S. v. SCRAP, in which a group of GWU Law students challenged the Interstate Commerce Commission's proposed rail freight rate increase on the ground that it would impede recycling. In Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, this legal concept negated the challenge to using a tax credit to finance religious schools. This legal concept has often been used to thwart litigation brought under the Endangered Species Act since plaintiffs have trouble showing harm from a loss of biodiversity. The first Supreme Court  decision that considered this legal concept was Frothingham v. Mellon, in which the fact that the defendant paid taxes was deemed insufficient to give him this status since there was no particularized harm in the government actions he considered unconstitutional. For 10 points, what is this legal status, which refers to whether a litigant is entitled to have a court decide the merits of his case?
This legal concept achieved its most expansive definition in the Supreme Court case U.S. v. SCRAP, in which a group of GWU Law students challenged the Interstate Commerce Commission's proposed rail freight rate increase on the ground that it would impede recycling.
standing to sue (accept word forms)