FACTS:

The petitioners filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the town
of Penfield and the members of Penfields Zoning, Planning, and Town Boards. The
petitioners claim alleged that the respondents are excluding people with low and
moderate income from living in the town because of the towns zoning ordinance
being enacted. The petitioners include: (1) the Metro-Act Rochester (not-for-profit
Corporation that fosters action to alleviate the housing shortage for low and
moderate income persons), (2) Rochester taxpayers, and (3) members of the
Rochester Home Builders Association (Home Builders) who have low or moderate
income.
ISSUE:
1. Do the petitioners have legal standing?
HELD:
1. The petitioners have no legal standing.
Regarding when a court can invoke jurisdiction:
Jurisdiction can only be invoked when the plaintiff himself has suffered "some
threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action
Jurisdiction cannot be invoked when the asserted harm is a "generalized
grievance" shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of
citizens
Even when the plaintiff has alleged injury sufficient to meet the "case or
controversy" requirement, this Court has held that the plaintiff generally must
assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on
the legal rights or interests of third parties
Reasons why the petitioners have no standing:
The residents with low and moderate income failed to allege specific,
concrete facts demonstrating that the challenged practices harmed them,
and that they personally would benefit in a tangible way from the court's
intervention
The claim of the taxpayers falls squarely within the prudential standing rule
that normally bars litigants from asserting the rights or legal interests of
others in order to obtain relief from injury to themselves.
Home Builders has failed to show the existence of any injury to its members
of sufficient immediacy and ripeness to warrant judicial intervention.
2. The district court dismissed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the district
courts decision.