{"id":48,"date":"2018-05-02T13:49:04","date_gmt":"2018-05-02T17:49:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/?page_id=48"},"modified":"2025-05-12T11:12:00","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T15:12:00","slug":"last-stand-for-prudential-standing-lexmark-and-its-implications","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/in-print-2\/volume-16-number-1-winter-2018\/last-stand-for-prudential-standing-lexmark-and-its-implications\/","title":{"rendered":"Last Stand for Prudential Standing? Lexmark and Its Implications"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In <em>Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.<\/em>, the Supreme Court called into question its \u201cprudential standing\u201d doctrine, a set of self-imposed limits \u201cbeyond the constitutional requirements\u201d of Article III that have been \u201cin some tension\u201d with the Court\u2019s \u201cvirtually unflagging\u201d obligation to hear any case or controversy that satisfies the requirements of Article III. To ameliorate this tension, the Court in <em>Lexmark<\/em> reclassified two of the three types of prudential standing restrictions it had previously categorized under that rubric. Notably, however, the Court did not say how third-party prudential standing fits into the picture, instead leaving that question for \u201canother day.\u201d Courts and commentators since then have acknowledged that <em>Lexmark<\/em> essentially heralded the end of this rule as well, at least in its current form. In <em>Starr International<\/em>, a recent case before the Federal Circuit, that court applied the third-party prudential standing rule despite acknowledging that the plaintiff had satisfied Article III\u2019s requirements. A pending certiorari petition in that case asks the Court to reverse the Federal Circuit and resolve this lingering issue leftover from <em>Lexmark<\/em>. Whether or not the Court grants certiorari in <em>Starr International<\/em>, at some point the Court will need to resolve the issue left open in <em>Lexmark<\/em>, and when it does this will probably mark the end of prudential standing as we know it. Additionally, if (or when) the Court abrogates prudential standing, it likely will have ripple effects on other self-imposed prudential limitations, as well as other doctrines without clear footing in Article III.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/23\/2018\/05\/16-1-Last-Stand-for-Prudential-Standing.pdf\">Keep Reading Last Stand for Prudential Standing<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., the Supreme Court called into question its \u201cprudential standing\u201d doctrine, a set of self-imposed limits \u201cbeyond the constitutional requirements\u201d of Article [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":28,"featured_media":0,"parent":26,"menu_order":8,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-48","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/48","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/28"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/48\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2664,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/48\/revisions\/2664"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/26"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}