Four Opinions on Access to the Courts From the Supreme Court's 2019-20 Term

In this unanimous opinion authored by Justice Scalia, the Court explained that prudential standing, although never exhaustively defined, has been thought to implicate three principles: (1) a bar on "generalized grievances"; (2) a requirement that claims must seek to protect interests that "fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked"; and (3) a "general prohibition" on third-party standing. The plurality added that the possibility of sanctions against the plaintiffs eliminated the risk that their claims were "abstract or hypothetical" and ensured proper AT&T Professor of Law, Texas Tech University School of Law. litigation incentives. [...]given that the plaintiffs, not patients, had to obtain admitting privileges, they were "the least awkward" and most "obvious" claimants. According to Justice Thomas, a "brief historical examination of Article Ill's case-or-controversy requirement" demonstrated that even where "the plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of another's legal injury, he has no standing to challenge a law that does not violate his own private rights." In this case, the plaintiffs, who were participants in a defined-benefit retirement plan, brought a class action contending that the defendants had violated duties of loyalty and prudence owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.