The gist of the question of standing is whether the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.
Taxpayers, individuals, non-profit corporations, Metro-Act and Housing Council, and non-profit trade association, against appellees, town, zoning board, and planning board filed a complaint against the Town of Penfield, New York on the ground that the town's zoning laws violated their rights. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Did the complainants have legal standing?
The court affirmed the order of the district court because appellants did not have standing. The court held that the taxpayers did not have standing because they did not allege that the taxes or expenditures were unconstitutional. The court held that the individuals did not have standing because they did not allege that anyone refused to sell or lease housing or property to them. The court held that the non-profit corporation Metro-Act did not have standing because it did not allege a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The court held that the non-profit corporation Housing Council did not have standing because it did not allege an injury in fact and it could not base its standing on the representation of other groups. The court held that the non-profit trade association did not have standing because there were no special circumstances.