Now I’m thoroughly confused. The dismissal by the lower court on the basis of standing was affirmed. The 3rd Circuit panel said, “we agree.”
Is not “standing” a component of the FRCP?
A motion to dismiss for lack of standing is made under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure-- dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction--but the word "standing" never appears in the Federal Rules. The doctrine is based on the courts' interpretation of Article III of the Constitution.
While the 3rd Circuit Panel references Article III requirements, they also agreed with the lower court that there is a requirement for the injury to be “concrete and particularized” and referenced the fact that “the Court has refrained from adjudicating ‘abstract questions of wide public significance’ which amount to ‘generalized grievances,’ pervasively shared and most appropriately addressed in the representative branches.”
The phrases “concrete and particularized” and “most appropriately addressed” seem to be made in deference to the Court’s Rules. What am I missing? (Obviously IANAL.)