In the standing test, the assertion that the harmful effect may be economic or non-economic is TRUE.

In the standing test, the assertion that the harmful effect may be economic or non-economic is TRUE.

• A. True
• B. False
• C. Only economic harm is allowed
• D. Only non-economic harm is allowed

Answer: (A)

In standing analysis, the injury that gives a plaintiff the right to challenge a decision can be economic or non-economic. The key is that the injury must be concrete and particularized and either actual or imminent. It isn’t limited to money losses; harms like loss of aesthetic value, reputational harm, or other non-financial injuries can count if they are real to the plaintiff and not a generalized grievance. So both types of harm can satisfy injury in fact, making the assertion true. The other options wrongly narrow standing to only economic or only non-economic harm.

In standing analysis, the injury that gives a plaintiff the right to challenge a decision can be economic or non-economic. The key is that the injury must be concrete and particularized and either actual or imminent. It isn’t limited to money losses; harms like loss of aesthetic value, reputational harm, or other non-financial injuries can count if they are real to the plaintiff and not a generalized grievance. So both types of harm can satisfy injury in fact, making the assertion true. The other options wrongly narrow standing to only economic or only non-economic harm.