In a landmark 2007 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court broadly expanded its standing doctrine. Traditionally, the U.S. standing doctrine has been narrow, relying largely on the “cases and controversies” language of Art. III of the U.S. Constitution. This doctrine has precluded third-party or tax-payer suits concerning administrative action. This Note compares the U.S. standing doctrine to that of South Africa, which has a much broader notion of who may bring suit. South Africa’s history with apartheid and distrust of government has led to a liberal standing doctrine in which any individual aggrieved by administrative action may bring suit to receive a written explanation from the offending agency. By exploring the doctrines, this Note argues that a similar type of standing in the United States would serve to democratize administrative action while still ensuring a constitutional separation of powers.
Daniel C. Garnaas-Holmes,
Taxpayer Standing: Maintaining Separation of Powers While Ensuring Democratic Administrative Action,
B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.