First Page
645
Abstract
The doctrine of standing plays an important role in limiting the classes of cases or controversies that are appropriate for judicial resolution; considered with other justiciability doctrines, judicial standing necessarily reflects the broader role of the court in society. Though the American judiciary had rather generous standing policies in place at the time of the founding, with the rise of the administrative state in the aftermath of the New Deal, progressive justices saw fit to restrict judicial standing as a means of insulating regulatory programs from industry challenge. In contradistinction, the young Israeli society has some of the most accessible courts in the world; the doctrine of standing poses no meaningful limitation on access to a judicial forum and the nonexistence of standing is a reflection of the role the Israeli society expects its courts to play in calling the government to account for its actions. This Note provides a historical account of the evolution of the American doctrine of standing, followed by an account of the Israeli doctrine of standing. Highlighting the key distinctions between the judiciaries of the United States and Israel, this Note identifies the challenge posed to the legitimacy of the Israeli judiciary should it continue permitting unfettered access to judicial forums with no meaningful standing limitations.
Recommended Citation
Joshua Hoyt,
Standing, Still? The Evolution of the Doctrine of Standing in the American and Israeli Judiciaries: A Comparative Perspective,
53 Vanderbilt Law Review
645
(2021)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vjtl/vol53/iss2/5