What is the two-step test for determining standing in a judicial review case?

What is the two-step test for determining standing in a judicial review case?

• A. (1) show some harmful effect (economic or non-economic); (2) interest must be within zone of interest protected by the statute
• B. (1) must show a direct monetary loss; (2) injury must be irreparable
• C. (1) must show a personal relationship to the agency; (2) must be a resident of the state
• D. (1) must show a willful violation of the law; (2) must be able to prove intent

Answer: (A)

Standing to seek judicial review rests on two elements: an injury in fact and a connection to the statute’s zone of interests. First, the plaintiff must show a concrete harm—some harmful effect, economic or non-economic—that affects a legally protected interest. This demonstrates the plaintiff has a stake in the agency’s action. Second, the injury must fall within the zone of interests the statute aims to protect, meaning the harmed interest is the type the law intends to safeguard. This prevents broad grievances from being litigated. The other proposed criteria don’t fit standing: demanding direct monetary loss, irreparable injury, or a personal relationship/residency aren’t the standard standing requirements; and insisting on willful violation or intent addresses culpability, not whether a party has the right to sue for judicial review.

Standing to seek judicial review rests on two elements: an injury in fact and a connection to the statute’s zone of interests. First, the plaintiff must show a concrete harm—some harmful effect, economic or non-economic—that affects a legally protected interest. This demonstrates the plaintiff has a stake in the agency’s action. Second, the injury must fall within the zone of interests the statute aims to protect, meaning the harmed interest is the type the law intends to safeguard. This prevents broad grievances from being litigated.

The other proposed criteria don’t fit standing: demanding direct monetary loss, irreparable injury, or a personal relationship/residency aren’t the standard standing requirements; and insisting on willful violation or intent addresses culpability, not whether a party has the right to sue for judicial review.