School District of Ogden v. Smith

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “self-inflicted harm doesn’t satisfy the basic requirements for standing” both because harm does not amount to an ‘injury’ under Article III’
• emphasizing that regulated association had not suffered cognizable injury where it had \within its grasp an easy means for alleviating the alleged uncertainty\ by petitioning the agency to adopt a clarifying rule
• holding the plaintiff lacked standing where “[i]t could inquire of [the agency] exactly how the agency proposes to resolve any of the conflicts that it claims to spot between the amendment and the regulations,” but did not do so
• discussing how “[a]n actual withdrawal of funding from the association’s members would clearly qualify” as an injury in fact but association did not “suggest that any such withdrawal has occurred”
• “[S]elf-inflicted harm doesn’t satisfy the basic requirements for standing. Such harm does not amount to an ‘injury’ cognizable under Article III”
• “We have consistently held that self- inflicted harm doesn’t satisfy the basic requirements for standing.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).