The 1992 Supreme Court case Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife established the three part test that established how to meet this requirement, including the need for an "injury in fact.
The precedent for this requirement established in Frothingham v. Mellon was overturned in Flast v. Cohen, which resulted in the Flast Test for determining if taxpayers meet this requirement. Justices Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter pushed for restricting the scope of this concept from public rights to private rights to prevent cases like Fairchild v. Hughes. The "cognizability" requirement seeks to prevent parties not directly (*) related to the violation of "legally protected rights" from meeting it. The 1992 Supreme Court case Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife established the three part test that established how to meet this requirement, including the need for an "injury in fact." The most basic qualification for "having" this concept is that a law or action has provably harmed a plaintiff and is redressable through the courts. For 10 points, name this eligibility of a party to file a suit in court.
The precedent for this requirement established in Frothingham v. Mellon was overturned in Flast v. Cohen, which resulted in the Flast Test for determining if taxpayers meet this requirement.
standing [or locus standi; accept answers like having standing]