Nonprofit Organization seeks to open vast western national parks to mountainbiking, while the organization’s members reside in Maine and have never visited the Western parks. The organization sues in federal court to force opening these parklands. Do the plaintiffs have standing based on the standing doctrine?

Nonprofit Organization seeks to open vast western national parks to mountainbiking, while the organization’s members reside in Maine and have never visited the Western parks. The organization sues in federal court to force opening these parklands. Do the plaintiffs have standing based on the standing doctrine?

• A. Yes, because standing must be based on particularized, concrete harm—not a general grievance.
• B. Yes, because the organization’s members live in the United States.
• C. No, because they have no actual injury in the Western parks.
• D. No, because public lands are not subject to private standing.

Answer: (A)

Standing focuses on injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, not a mere general grievance about government policy. A nonprofit can sue in federal court if it can show that its own activities or its members’ interests are directly harmed by the challenged action, or that its members would have standing to sue in their own right and the suit is germane to the organization’s purpose. Here, the organization pursues a programmatic goal—opening national parks in the West to mountain biking. If the current policy keeps those parks closed to that use, the organization cannot advance its mission and its activities (planning, advocacy, member engagement, events, etc.) are impeded. That potential loss of ability to pursue its mission constitutes a concrete, particularized injury to the organization, not a vague, generalized grievance about public lands. The fact that the organization’s members live in Maine and have never visited the Western parks does not erase this concrete organizational harm; what matters is whether the organization’s mission and activities are harmed by the policy. That is why standing exists here: there is a concrete, specific injury tied to the organization’s purpose, rather than a broad, abstract complaint about public lands.

Standing focuses on injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, not a mere general grievance about government policy. A nonprofit can sue in federal court if it can show that its own activities or its members’ interests are directly harmed by the challenged action, or that its members would have standing to sue in their own right and the suit is germane to the organization’s purpose.

Here, the organization pursues a programmatic goal—opening national parks in the West to mountain biking. If the current policy keeps those parks closed to that use, the organization cannot advance its mission and its activities (planning, advocacy, member engagement, events, etc.) are impeded. That potential loss of ability to pursue its mission constitutes a concrete, particularized injury to the organization, not a vague, generalized grievance about public lands. The fact that the organization’s members live in Maine and have never visited the Western parks does not erase this concrete organizational harm; what matters is whether the organization’s mission and activities are harmed by the policy.

That is why standing exists here: there is a concrete, specific injury tied to the organization’s purpose, rather than a broad, abstract complaint about public lands.