Which statement best describes the zone-of-interests test in standing?

Which statement best describes the zone-of-interests test in standing?

• A. A plaintiff must show injury in fact that is concrete and particularized and falls within the zone of interests protected by the statute.
• B. A plaintiff must show injury to property only.
• C. The zone of interests test is identical to injury-in-fact.
• D. Zone of interests applies only to environmental cases.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that standing isn’t just about having any injury, but about having a real, specific harm that the law is meant to address. The zone-of-interests test asks whether the plaintiff’s injury falls within the type of harm the statute or constitutional provision is designed to protect or regulate. When you combine that with injury in fact being concrete and particularized, you have a plaintiff who is both personally affected in a meaningful way and squarely within the statute’s scope, so the court can provide a remedy. This means the correct statement is that a plaintiff must show injury in fact that is concrete and particularized and falls within the zone of interests protected by the statute. It’s not limited to property injuries, it’s not identical to injury-in-fact (which is only one part of standing), and it’s not restricted to environmental cases.

The key idea is that standing isn’t just about having any injury, but about having a real, specific harm that the law is meant to address. The zone-of-interests test asks whether the plaintiff’s injury falls within the type of harm the statute or constitutional provision is designed to protect or regulate. When you combine that with injury in fact being concrete and particularized, you have a plaintiff who is both personally affected in a meaningful way and squarely within the statute’s scope, so the court can provide a remedy.

This means the correct statement is that a plaintiff must show injury in fact that is concrete and particularized and falls within the zone of interests protected by the statute. It’s not limited to property injuries, it’s not identical to injury-in-fact (which is only one part of standing), and it’s not restricted to environmental cases.