Abstract
In 1980, one of the leading authorities on housing law noted that the Supreme Court had been "especially active" in the 1970's in addressing standing problems in cases with allegations of housing discrimination;' indeed, he wrote that "standing problems in fair housing cases seem to have grown out of all proportion to their proper place in this field. Part I of this article reviews the general principles of standing as they have been enunciated in the last few decades by the Supreme Court. Part II examines the analysis of the "injury" requirement in Ragin v. Harry Macklowe, and points out that similar statutory language has been given quite different interpretations in other statutes. Finally, in Part IV, I suggest that both the so-called Article III requirements and the prudential rules identified by the Court are fairly good standing rules that can be used as a baseline in interpreting statutes.
Recommended Citation
Michael E. Rosman,
Standing Alone: Standing under the Fair Housing Act,
60 Mo. L. Rev.
(1995)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol60/iss3/2