Too many courts are following the example of Pilate when plaintiffs have a case to bring. Rather than giving justice to just persons, the courts wash their hands by saying, “I don’t think you have ‘standing’ to bring your case to my court. Yes, it's an important case, but someone else needs to see to it. I'm washing my hands of it.”

Remarks Constitutional litigator Robert Barnes,

“This Pontius Pilate plea of the courts gives them the pretense and pretext to avoid cases and controversies precisely because they are true cases and controversies. It also affords them the means to protect their allies and impair their ideological adversaries.

“Hence, conservative courts embrace “standing” to defeat environmental groups, voting rights groups, housing discrimination groups, and the like to contesting state power

…while liberal courts embrace “standing” to prevent gun rights, property rights, and disfavored conservative causes from challenging state power.

"Both sides, of course, completely flip sides when it’s time for their side to challenge state action.

"Voters have no right to challenge 2020 election results, not even states. Yet Trump haters have standing to demand Trump not even be on the ballot?

"This is why “standing” is not a serious doctrine, nor should its advocates be taken seriously. The political shroud it provides cowardly courts to escape a case is precisely because the case is a controversy worthy of Constitutional redress, not because the case doesn’t even arise to such a controversy in the first place.”