The Constitution also plays a part in determining if review is available. The legal system of the United States is adversarial. Article III, § 2, of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to “cases or controversies.” This means that an actual dispute must exist before a federal court can exercise jurisdiction. Theoretical and hypothetical disputes may not be decided by a federal court.

The purpose of the case or controversy limitation is to prevent the courts from becoming law makers, a responsibility reserved to Congress. By requiring a genuine conflict between real people (or corporations and other entities), courts react and apply the law, as opposed to reflecting abstractly to make new law. What is the relationship between standing and statutory rights of review? First, if statutory law is silent on the question of who has a right to petition for review, standing principles apply.

Second, if statutory law narrows or limits the group that can seek review, the statute applies. Third, if a statute makes review available to those not qualified under standing principles, the statute is likely constitutional. The standing doctrine stems from the case or controversy limitation of the Constitution. Standing concerns the issue of who may sue. The standing doctrine requires that the person bringing a lawsuit has a personal interest in the case.

Early standing law required that to have standing, a person had to prove that a legally protected interest or right had been violated. Under this test, financial or personal injury alone was not sufficient to establish standing in many instances. This requirement proved unworkable. In many cases, courts had to address the merits of a case simply to decide whether standing existed. It was, therefore, time inefficient. A new test was developed, which is the subject of the Data Processing case.