Access to Justice: Standing in the Roberts Court

Abstract

This thesis examines how the Roberts Court has applied the doctrine of Article III standing from 2005 to 2025. Standing serves as a threshold requirement that determines who may bring a claim in federal court and has traditionally been understood as a mechanism for preserving the separation of powers. While some scholars view standing as a neutral constitutional limitation, others argue that it functions as a gatekeeping tool that allows courts to shape access to judicial review. To investigate this debate, this study constructs a dataset of 61 Supreme Court cases in which standing was a significant issue during the Roberts Court era. Cases were coded according to standing outcome, ideological direction, and vote margin. In addition to quantitative analysis, the thesis examines key cases including Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), West Virginia v. EPA (2022), and TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (2021). The findings suggest that the Roberts Court does not apply standing in a consistently neutral manner. While standing grants were evenly divided between liberal and conservative outcomes, denied standing cases overwhelmingly produced conservative outcomes. The analysis also reveals that standing disputes frequently arise in closely divided decisions, indicating that the doctrine may be intertwined with broader ideological disagreements. This study concludes that although standing remains formally grounded in Article III, its application in the Roberts Court often functions as a flexible gatekeeping mechanism that influences access to justice and judicial review.