Page:Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer.pdf/10

10 future case,” we have needlessly invited litigants to follow Laufer’s path to manipulate our docket. We should not resolve this case about standing based upon mootness of Laufer’s own making.

Turning to the question presented, Laufer lacks standing to bring her ADA claims. Article III of the Constitution extends the “judicial Power” to all “Cases” and “Controversies.” Standing doctrine serves to “limi[t] the ‘judicial power’ to ‘ “cases and controversies of the sort traditionally amenable to, and resolved by, the judicial process.” ’ ” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U. S. 330, 343 (2016) (, concurring) (quoting Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U. S. 765, 774 (2000)). In doing so, standing “preserve[s] separation of powers by preventing the Judiciary’s entanglement in disputes that are primarily political in nature.” Spokeo, 578 U. S., at 344.

As I have previously explained, “[t]he mere filing of a complaint in federal court … does not a case (or controversy) make.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 446 (2021) (, dissenting). Our “judicial power [does not extend] to every violation of the constitution [or law] which may possibly take place, but to ‘a case in law or equity,’ in which a right, under such law, is asserted in a Court of justice.” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 405 (1821). To have standing, a plaintiff must assert a violation of his rights. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 563 (1992) (“[T]he party seeking review [must] be himself among the injured” (internal quotation marks omitted)). After all, “[t]he province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 170 (1803). It is not to address a plaintiff’s claim of