Document Type
Article
Publication Title
University of Chicago Law Review
Abstract
This Comment is organized in three parts. Part I reviews current standing law and explores its shortcomings. Part II examines the D.C. Circuit's decision in Center for Auto Safety v Thomas, where the debate over deference to congressional findings began, and traces the development of the issue in three subsequent D.C. Circuit cases: Dellums v Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, United Transportation Union v Interstate Commerce Comm'n, and City of Los Angeles v National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Using these cases as a framework, Part III argues that separation of powers considerations compel deference to congressional findings on facts underlying causation and redressability. Much academic commentary has criticized standing analysis or advocated a less restrictive doctrine. The Supreme Court, however, has shown no inclination to abandon its current approach. This Comment does not propose a new framework for standing analysis. Rather, it shows how deference to legislative findings makes the present standing test more useful.
First Page
1645
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2307/1600012
Volume
59
Publication Date
1992
Recommended Citation
Christopher J. Sprigman,
Standing on Firmer Ground: Separation of Powers and Deference to Congressional Findings in the Standing Analysis,
59
University of Chicago Law Review
1645
(1992).
Available at:
https://gretchen.law.nyu.edu/fac-articles/1106
