Which statement about standing is accurate?

Which statement about standing is accurate?

• A. An injury may be speculative if the plaintiff wants to challenge broad policy.
• B. A plaintiff can rely on a generalized grievance to establish standing.
• C. Standing exists even without any concrete injury if the action is widely contested.
• D. Injury must be concrete, particularized, actual and imminent.

Answer: (D)

Standing rests on the idea that a plaintiff must have a real, personal stake in the outcome. The injury in fact must be concrete and particularized to the plaintiff and must be actual or imminent. This ensures the dispute is real and directly affects the plaintiff, not just a broad or speculative concern. So the statement that injury must be concrete, particularized, actual and imminent is the correct reflection of standing doctrine. An injury that is speculative isn’t enough; a generalized grievance isn’t enough to confer standing; and standing cannot exist without a concrete injury even in widely contested or policy-driven cases.

Standing rests on the idea that a plaintiff must have a real, personal stake in the outcome. The injury in fact must be concrete and particularized to the plaintiff and must be actual or imminent. This ensures the dispute is real and directly affects the plaintiff, not just a broad or speculative concern.

So the statement that injury must be concrete, particularized, actual and imminent is the correct reflection of standing doctrine. An injury that is speculative isn’t enough; a generalized grievance isn’t enough to confer standing; and standing cannot exist without a concrete injury even in widely contested or policy-driven cases.