Opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Warth v. Seldin addressing the question of standing in a federal court as follows: ―In essence, the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of the particular issues. This query involves both constitutional limitations on federal court jurisdiction and prudential limitations on its exercise. In its constitutional dimension, standing imports judiciability: whether the plaintiff has made out a ―case or controversy‖ between himself and the defendant within the meaning of Art.III. This is the threshold question in every federal case, determining the power of the court to entertain the suit. As an aspect of judiciability, the standing question is whether the plaintiff has ―alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy‖ as to warrant his invocation of federal –court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court‘s remedial powers on his behalf. Baker v. Carr 369 U.S.186,204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 703, 7 L.Ed.2d 663(1962).The United States Constitution Article III §2 specifically limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to ―Cases or Controversies.‖ Justice Powell delivered the
The Art. III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining party…A Federal court‘s jurisdiction therefore can be invoked only when the plaintiff himself has suffered ―some threat or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action…‖ Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617, 93 S.Ct. 1146,1148, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973).‖ Warth v. Seldin 422U.S.490, 498 (1975) ―Apart from this minimum constitutional mandate, this Court has recognized other limits on the class of persons who may invoke the courts‘ decisional and remedial powers. … even when the plaintiff has alleged injury sufficient to meet the ―case or controversy‖ requirement, this Court has held that the plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and interests and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties. E.g., Tilestion v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44, 63 S.Ct. 493, 87 L.Ed. 603 (1943).‖ Warth v. Seldin 422U.S.490, 499 (1975) (emphasis added)
The Debtor in the instant case reiterates that a party seeking relief in any Federal Court ―bears the burden of demonstrating standing and must plead its components with specificity.‖ Coyne v American Tobacco Company, 183 F.3d 488, 494 (6th Cir. 1999). Again, the minimum constitutional requirements for standing are: proof of injury in fact, causation, and redressability.
Valley Forge Christian College v Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 473 (1982). Furthermore, in order to satisfy the requirements of Article III of the United States Constitution, any claimant asserting rights in a Federal Court must show he has personally suffered some actual injury as a result of the conduct of the adverse party. Coyne, 183 F.3d at 494; Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 472.