The standing doctrine is derived from the U.S. Constitution’s Article III provision that federal courts have the power to hear cases arising under federal law and controversies involving certain types of parties. In the most fundamental application of the philosophy of judicial restraint, the U.S. SUPREME COURT has interpreted this language to forbid the rendering of advisory opinions. Once a federal court determines that a real CASE OR CONTROVERSY exists, it must then ascertain whether the parties to the LITIGATION have standing. The Supreme Court has devel- oped an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong. Most standing issues arise over the enforce- ment of an allegedly unconstitutional statute, ordinance, or policy. One may challenge a law or policy on constitutional grounds if he can show that enforcement of the law or implementation of the policy infringes on an individual constitutional right, such as FREEDOM OF SPEECH . For example, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 [1969]), high school officials in Des Moines, Iowa, had suspended students for wearing black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in the VIETNAM WAR. There was no question that the parents of the students had standing to challenge the restrictions on the wearing of armbands. Mere ideological opposition to a particular government policy, such as the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, however, is not sufficient grounds to challenge that policy in court. A significant economic injury or burden is sufficient to provide standing to sue, but in most situations a taxpayer does not have standing to challenge policies or programs that she is forced to support. In Frothingham v. Mellon (288 F. 252 [C.A.D.C. 1923]), the Supreme Court denied a federal taxpayer the right to challenge a federal program that she claimed violated the TENTH AMENDMENT , which reserves certain powers to the states. The Court said that a party must show some “direct injury as the result of the statute’s enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way common with people generally.” Although the Supreme Court made a narrow exception to this prohibition on taxpayer suits in Flast v. Cohen (392 U.S. 83, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 9 47 [1968]), granting standing to a taxpayer to challenge federal spending that would benefit parochial schools, the Court has as of 2009 never gone beyond that. In fact, there is some doubt as to the vitality of the Flast decision. In 1974 the Court denied standing to a taxpayer who sought to challenge Congress’s exempting the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY from the constitutional requirement under Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, that government expendi- tures be publicly reported (United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 94 S. Ct. 2940, 41 L. Ed. 2d 678). Since Richardson, the Court has continued to maintain the traditional barrier against taxpayer lawsuits. The issue of standing has played a crucial role in CLASS ACTION lawsuits, especially those filed by environmental groups. In SIERRA CLUB v. Morton (405 U.S. 727, 92 S. Ct. 1361, 31 L. Ed. 2d 636 [1972]), the Court denied standing to an environmental group that was challenging a decision by the secretary of the interior. The Court ruled that the Sierra Club had not demonstrated that its members would be sub- stantially adversely affected by the secretary’s decision. In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (504 U.S. 555, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 [1992]), the Court denied standing to a conserva- tion group challenging government regulations under the ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. The Court held that the group could not show an “injury in fact” that would grant it standing. It needed to demonstrate that it had suffered a tangible and particular harm. Later environmental lawsuits have overcome the standing hurdle by including specific harms that group members would suffer, thus avoiding the Court’s rule against generalized concerns. State governments successfully gained standing in a class action lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s claim that it could regulation tailpipe emissions under the CLEAN AIR ACT.InMassachusetts v. EPA (549 U.S. 497, 127 S. Ct. 14398, 167 L. Ed. 2d 248 [2007]), the Court ruled that Massachusett’s “well- founded desire to preserve its sovereign territory” was sufficient to satisfy the standing requirement. The issue of standing is more than a technical aspect of the judicial process. A grant GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 328 STANDING or denial of standing determines who may challenge government policies and what types of policies may be challenged. Those who believe that the federal courts should not increase their power generally believe standing should be used to limit access to the courts by persons or groups seeking to change PUBLIC POLICY. They believe the legislative branch should deal with these types of issues. Opponents of a strict standing test complain that plaintiffs never get a chance to prove their case in court. They believe that justice should not be denied by the application of judicially created doctrine s such as standing. FURTHER READINGS Chemerinsky, Erwin. 2003. Federal Jurisdiction. 4th ed. Boston: Aspen. Currie, David. 1999. Federal Jurisdiction in a Nutshell. 4th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group. Wright, Charles Alan. 2002.Law of Federal Courts. 6th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group. CROSS REFERENCE Judicial Review. v STANFORD, AMASA LELAND Amasa Leland Stanford, known as Leland Stanford, along with partners Charles Crocker, Mark Hopkins, and Collis P. Huntington (the Big Four), founded the Central Pacific and Southern Pacific Rail Roads, and laid the tracks that would eventually link a nation. In the course of building the first transcontinental railroad, Stanford domi- nated California business, politics, and social life for almost 50 years. Stanford was born on March 9, 1824, in Watervliet, New York. He was one of eight children born to Josiah Stanford and El izabeth Phillips Stanford. His fathe r was a prominent farmer and a prosperous merchant, who sup- plied building materials for the town’s public works projects. Growing up, Stanford worked on the family farm and helped his father with local road and bridge construction. His boy- hood work on the local transportation infra- structure sparked an interest that would fuel his life’s work. Stanford’s early education included atten- dance at the local public school and some home schooling. At 18, he enrolled at the Clinton Liberal Institute, in Clinton, New York. He completed his education at New York’s Leland Stanford. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ▼▼ ▼▼ Amasa Leland Stanford 1824–1893 18001800 18501850 18751875 19001900 18251825 ❖ 1824 Born, Watervliet, N.Y. ◆ 1845 Admitted to New York bar ◆ 1848 Moved to Fort Washington, Wisc. ◆ 1852 Joined his brothers in California 1861 Organized Central Pacific Railroad 1861–65 U.S. Civil War 1861–63 Served as governor of Calif. ◆ ◆ 1869 Completion of first transcontinental railroad 1863–69 Central Pacific and Union Pacific built railroad line from Sacramento to Omaha ◆ 1884 Organized Southern Pacific Company ◆ 1891 Stanford University opened 1893 Died, Palo Alto, Calif. ◆❖ 1885–93 Served in U.S. Senate 1885 Became director and president of Southern Pacific Company, set up founding grant for Stanford University GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION STANFORD, AMASA LELAND 329 Cazenovia Seminary. At twenty-one, he began clerking with the law firm of Wheaton, Doolittle, and Hadley, in Albany, New York. Three years later, in 1845, Stanford was admitted to the bar. Like many you ng men of his era, Stanford saw tremendous opportunity for those who moved west. In 1848 he settled in Port Washington, Wisconsin, to establish a law practice. While Stanford was establishing his professional career in Wisconsin, several of his brothers headed to California, eager to apply their skills as merchants in its mining camps and growing towns. In the spring of 1852, Stanford sent his wife, Jane Elizabeth Lathrop Stanford, to stay with her family in Albany, and he followed his brothers to the Pacific Coast. By all accounts, Stanford arrived in California with little or no money. His brothers provided him with a stock of miners’ supplies and set him up as a merchant in a mining town. His business there was very successful. Popular with the miners and trained in the law, Stanford was often called upon to mediate claim disputes and other problems. Convinced that his future was in California, Stanford persuaded his wife to join him there. In 1856 they established a home in Sacramento. Stanford continued to be involved with his brothers and their business interests, but he devoted most of his time—unsuccessfully—to politics. He ran as a Republican candidate for state treasurer in 1857 and for governor in 1859. He was defeated in both races, but the campaigns made him a well-known politic al figure throughout the state. Finally in 1861, when the outbreak of the U.S. CIVIL WAR split the state DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Stanford was successful in a bid for the governor’s seat. As the state’s first Republican governor, he faced two immediate challenges: the possibility that California would split from the Union, and a serious flooding of the Sacramento River (which was so extensive that Stanford had to crawl out the window of his home and row himself to his inauguration). Stanford held California safely in the Union, and he coped with the damage caused by the flood. After providing for flood victims, and promoting minor administrative and legisla- tive reforms, Stanford spent much of his time as governor pursuing his interest in railroads as a growing industry. Just before the Civil War, President ABRAHAM LINCOLN signed the PACIFIC RAILROAD ACT, autho- rizing the construction of a transcontinental railroad from Omaha to Sacramento. Despite the coming war, investors and entrepreneurs across the United States looked for ways to participate in, and profit from, the new venture. Prior to his election as governor, Stanford and three other Sacramento merchants—Crocker, Hopkins, and Huntington—had financed railroad feasibility surveys and had organized the Central Pacific Rail Road Company on June 28, 1861. Stanford was named president. During his two-year term as governor, Stanford committed a substantial amount of public money to the construction of the Central Pacific Rail Road. Any apprehensions Stanford may have had about mingling his official actions with his private interests were overshadowed by his conviction that a rail connection with the East would benefit all citizens of California. When his term as governor expired, Stan- ford left government to construct his railroad. On January 8, 1863, workers from the Central Pacific Rail Road Company began laying track at Front and K Streets in Sacramen to—one year before the Unio n Pacific started work in the East. Six years later, on May 10, 1869, Stanford drove a gold spike in the final section of track at Promontory Point, Utah. The Central Pacific Rail Road united the West with the rest of the country, and secured Stanford’s place in railroad history. After completion of the East-West link, Stanford continued to work with his partners. The four devoted their time to strengthening and expanding their railroad properties. In 1884 they organized the Southern Pacific Company as a holding company. In 188 5 the Southern Pacific Company leased the Southern Pacific Rail Road, the Central Pacific Rail Road, and other system properties, and became the dominant unit of the organization. Stanford served as president and director of the Central Pacific Rail Road Company from its inception until his death in 1893. He was direc tor of the Southern Pacific Company from 1885 to 1893, and president from 1885 to 1890. He was director of the Southern Pacific Rail Road from 1889 to 1890. Though no public accounting has ever been made of the profits Stanford and his partners drew from the construction of the Central A MAN WILL NEVER CONSTRUCT ANYTHING HE CANNOT IMAGINE . —LELAND STANFORD GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 330 STANFORD, AMASA LELAND Pacific and Southern Pacific Rail Roads, it is known that the enterprise made them all enormously wealthy. Stanford lived in grand style in Sacramento, and later in San Francisco. He also owned Palo Alto, a ranch in Tehama County, where he cultivated vineyards and bred racing stock. Stanford’s horse-training methods were widely adopted, and his interest in how horses moved at high speeds prompted him to sponsor early experiments in motion picture photography. In the early 2000s, the Palo Alto ranch is the site of Stanford University, a memorial to Stanford’s only child . Leland Stanford Jr. died in 1884, at the age of 15, while touring in Italy. He had been his father’s pride and joy. Stanford had placed him on an elaborate silver tray and presented him to guests at a party shortly after his birth in 1869. The tray can still be seen at the Leland Stanford House in Sacramento. Devastated by the death of his son and looking for a new challenge, Stanford allowed himself to be drafted by the REPUBLICAN PARTY as a candidate for the U.S. Senate. He was elected in 1885. It is generally conceded that Stanford was no t suited to life as a senator. He was often absent and showed little enthusiasm for the work. His election also caused friction with his long-time business partners, who had supported another candidate. In spite of his poor performance—and poor health—he was reelected in 1891, and served until his death two years later. The five-foot eleven-inc h, 268-pound rail- road giant succumbed to heart problems at his Palo Alto ranch on June 21, 1893. Upon his death, the bulk of his estate passed to his wife, who used it to support the university founded by Stanford and named for their son. Stanford is interred with his son and his wife in the family mausoleum on the Stanford University campu s. FURTHER READINGS Lewis, Oscar. 1938. The Big Four: The Story of Huntington, Stanford, Hopkins, and Crocker, and of the Building of the Central Pacific. Reprint, 1981, New York: Arno Press. Rayner, Richard. 2008. The Associates: Four Capitalists Who Created California. New York: W. W. Norton. Tutorow, Norman E. 2004. The Governor: The Life and Legacy of Leland Stanford, a California Colossus. Spokane, Wash.: Arthur H. Clark. v STANTON, EDWIN MCMASTERS Edwin McMasters Stanton served as U.S. attorney general from December 1860 to March 1861, at a time when the southern states were moving toward secession from the Union. He later served as secretary of war during the U.S. CIVIL WAR under President ABRAHAM LINCOLN and was a key figure in the events that led to the IMPEACHMENT of President ANDREW JOHNSON. Stanton was born on December 19, 1814, in Steubenville, Ohio. He attended Kenyon College and studied law. He was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1836 and began his law practice in Cadiz, Ohio. From 1837 to 1839, Stanton was a county prosecutor. In 1842 he was elected reporter of the decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court. In 1847 Stanton moved to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where he established a successful law practice. A skilled trial and appellate advocate, Stanton soon established a specialty in litigating federal law issues. In 1856 he relocated to Washington, D.C., where he argued several important cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1858 he successfully defended the state of California in land FRAUD cases involving Mexi- can land acquired by the United States. President JAMES BUCHANAN asked Stanton to serve as attorney general in late 1860, as Buchanan’s term drew to a close. Southern Edwin M. Stanton. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION STANTON, EDWIN MC MASTERS 331 politicians, worried that the next president, Abraham Lincoln, would implement antislavery measures, discussed secession from the Union. Stanton was a Democrat but he opposed SLAVERY. He counse led Buchanan not to abandon Fort Sumter, a fortification in the harbor of Charles- ton, South Carolina, that was held by Union forces. Stanton also secretly advised Republi- can leaders of cabinet discussions involving secession. In 1862 President Lincoln appointed Stanton secretary of war. During the remainder of the Civil War, Stanton proved to be an effective administrator, minimizing corruption and increasing the efficiency of the military by ensuring that the necessary supplies and troops were available. He continually argued for a more aggressive prosecution of the war, a position that provoked violent quarrels with military command ers. After the assassinati on of Lincoln in April 1865, Stanton played a leading role in the investigation and prosecution of the conspira- tors. Lincoln’s successor, Andrew Johnson, retained Stanton as secretary of war, but they soon clashed over Johnson’s Reconstruction program for the South. Stanton sought stricter policies against the South and worked with the Radical Republicans in Congress, who were Johnson’s bitterest enemies, to achieve his aims. In 1867 Johnson asked Stanton to resign because of this betrayal, but Stanton refused. He defended his actions under the TENURE OF OFFICE ACT (14 Stat. 430), which prohibited the removal of any federal official without senatorial consent when the official’s appointment had originally been approved by the Senate. The Radical Republicans had passed this act in 1867 over Johnson’s VETO as a way of preventing the president from removing officials opposed to his Reconstruction policies. Johnson ignored the Tenure of Office Act and appointed Lorenzo Thomas secretary of war. Johnson’s action led to his impeachment by the House of Representatives, but the Senate acquit- ted him by one vote in 1868. After the acquittal Stanton finally resigned his cabinet post. Stanton returned to private practice but his health was failing. In 1869 President ULYSSES S. GRANT appointed Stanton to the U.S. Supreme Court, but he died on December 24, 1869, in Washington, D.C., before he could assume the position. FURTHER READINGS Longacre, Edward. 2007. Ulysses S. Grant: The Soldier and the Man. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. Pratt, Fletcher. 1970. Stanton: Lincoln’s Secretary of War. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Thomas, Benjamin Platt, and Harold M. Hyman. 1980. Stanton, the Life and Times of Lincoln’s Secretary of War. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. v STANTON, ELIZABETH CADY The opening salvo in the battle for WOMEN ’S RIGHTS was fired in 1848 by the grande dame of U.S. feminism, Elizabeth Cady Stanton. When Stanton and colleague Lucretia Mott organized the nation’s first women’s rights convention in 1848, in Seneca Falls, New York, they sought nothing less than a revolution. They pressed for equal education, better employment opportu- nities, and the vote fo r women—radical notions Edwin McMasters Stanton 1814–1869 ▼▼ ▼▼ 18751875 18501850 18251825 ◆ ❖ 1812–14 War of 1812 1814 Born, Steubenville, Ohio 1836 Admitted to Ohio bar 1837–39 Served as county prosecutor ◆ 1842 Elected reporter of decisions for the Ohio Supreme Court ◆ 1847 Moved to Pittsburgh, Pa. and established law practice ◆ 1861–65 U.S. Civil War 1858 Successfuly defended California in land fraud cases before the Supreme Court ◆◆ ◆ ❖ 1869 Appointed by Grant to U.S. Supreme Court; died, Washington, D.C. 1868 House voted to impeach Johnson; Stanton resigned after Johnson acquitted 1860–61 Served as U.S. attorney general under Buchanan 1862–68 Served as secretary of war 1865 Lincoln assassinated; Stanton led investigation and prosecution of conspirators 1867 President Johnson requested Stanton's resignation; Stanton refused under Tenure of Office Act GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 332 STANTON, ELIZABETH CADY in the mid– nineteenth-century United States. For 50 years, Stanton was a key strategist and standard-bearer for the feminist movement. Along with fellow suffragist SUSAN B. ANTHONY and other activists, she helped elevate the legal, social, and political status of U.S. women. Stanton was born November 12, 1815, in Johnstown, New York. She was the middle daughter of Daniel Cady and Margaret Living- ston Cady, a prominent couple in Johnstown. Elizabeth was one of eleven children, but all five of her brothers and one sister died during childhood. In some ways, Stanton was raised by her parents as a substitute for those deceased brothers. Unlike most girls of her generation, Stanton participated in athletic activities and excelled in courses typically reserved for males, such as Latin, Greek, logic, philosophy, and economics. Stanton’s father, a lawyer and a New York Supreme Court judge, even encouraged her to study law with him, although later he regretted his actions: as an adult, Stanton used her legal knowledge to craft well-reasoned arguments for women’s rights, a cause he disliked. After she graduated from Johnstown Acad- emy in 1830 at age 15, Stanton’s ambition was to attend New York’s Union College. Her enrollment was impossible, however, because Union, like every other college in the entire nation, did not admit women as students. (Ohio’s Oberlin College was the first U.S. college to accept female students, in 1834.) Instead of Union College, Stanton attended Troy Female Seminary, in Troy, New York. She graduated in 1833. Stanton returned to Johnstown, where she divided her time between the pleasant diversions of upper-class life and the important social causes of the day. Despite her parents’ objections, she married an abolitionist, Henry Brewster Stanton, in 1840. From the beginning of their marriage, Stanton insisted on being addressed in public by her full name. Throughout her long life, only her political enemies called her Mrs. Henry Stanton. While attending an international antislavery conference in London with her new husband in Elizabeth Cady Stanton 1815–1902 ▼▼ ▼▼ 18001800 18501850 18751875 19001900 19251925 18251825 ◆ ❖ 1815 Born, Johnstown, N.Y. 1812–14 War of 1812 1833 Graduated from Troy Female Seminary (New York) ◆ 1848 Organized the Seneca Falls convention with Lucretia Mott; lobbied for passage of the Married Women's Property Act of 1848 ◆ 1852 Formed the Women's Temperance Society Association with Susan B. Anthony 1861–65 U.S. Civil War ◆ 1869 Formed the National Women's Suffrage Association (NWSA) with Anthony ◆ 1881–86 History of Woman Suffrage published ◆ 1920 Nineteenth Amendment became law, gave women the right to vote ❖ 1902 Died, New York City ◆ ◆ 1898 Second half of the Woman's Bible published 1895 First half of the Woman's Bible published 1890 Merger of suffrage associations formed National American Suffrage Association; Wyoming became first state to grant women the right to vote Elizabeth Cady Stanton. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION STANTON, ELIZABETH CADY 333 1840, Stanton met Mott, a Quaker activist involved in the nascent U.S. women’s move- ment. Stanton and Mott became quick friends and allies. Both were outraged over the refusal of the male antislavery leaders to seat female delegates at the London conference. Back in the United States, the two corresponded and sometimes joined forces in abolitionist activi- ties. They also finalized plans for the nation’s first women’s rights convention. In 1848, 100 women and men gathered in Seneca Falls for the historic convention. The agenda included a speech by renowned African American abolitionist FREDERICK DOUGLASS, and a proposal to adopt Stanton’s manifesto, the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments. The Seneca Falls declaration was inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence. It boldly proclaimed that all men and women were equal and that women deserved greater protection under the law. The declaration called for the expansion of employment and educational opportunities for women, and the right for women to vote. After lengthy debate, it was adopted in its entirety by the convention. The SENECA FALLS CONVENTION was derided by the press—prompting Stanton to complain that its participants “were neither sour old maids, childless women, nor divorced wives as the newspapers declared them to be.” Nevertheless, the convention succeeded in bringing women’s issues to the political forefront. After Seneca Falls, Stanton was an acknowl- edged leader of the U.S. women’s movement. She soon joined forces with Anthony, the country’s most prominent suffragist. For the next fiftyyears,AnthonywasStanton’s staunchest feminist ally. In addition to women’s rights and ABOLITION, Stanton was involved in temperance, the move- ment to ban the sale and consumption of alcohol in the United States. Combining temperance with women’s rights made sense to Stanton, both philosophically and practically. Drunken men destroyed the lives of powerless wives and children. Without laws to protect them, women who were married to chronic drinkers often faced physical abuse and finan- cial ruin. The Married Women’s Property Act of 1848 addressed this imbalance in legal power. Stanton helped win passage of the law by conducting an exhaustive petition drive through- out the state of New York. Although Stanton supported temperance wholeheartedly, she was angered that the move- ment’s male leaders were just as misguided as the abolitionists at the London antislavery conference. When Stanton attempted to partic- ipate in a Sons of Temperance meeting, she was summarily removed from the building. She and Anthony formed their own group, the Woman’s State Temperance Society, in 1852. The women’smovementstalledaroundthe time of the U.S. CIVIL WAR because many of its supporters focused exclusively on abolition. As president of the National Woman’sLoyal League, Stanton helped gather four hundred thousand signatures on petitions in support of the THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT abolishing SLAVERY. After the war, Stanton and Anthony were bitterly disappointed when their abolitionist colleagues refused to support the inclusion of women in either the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, which granted African American males citizenship, or the FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT, which gave those males the right to vote. Stanton and Anthony formed the National Woman’s Suffrage Association in 1869 with the sole purpose of winning the vote for women. Because Stanton was busy with her fam ily of seven children, she initially worked at her home on VOTING RIGHTS strategy while Anthony traveled the country delivering lectures. Later, this arrangement changed as Stanton became a sought-after speaker during the 1870s in the lyceum movement, a series of cultural and educational programs for adults. As Stanton grew older, she became even more radical in her thinking. She shocked people with her pro-divorce, pro-labor, and antireligion opinions. In particular, her book Woman’s Bible, published partially in 1895 and partially in 1898, drew fire because in it, Stanton lambasted what she viewed as the male bias of the Bible. When Stanton suggested that all organized religion oppressed women and should therefore be abolished, many felt she had gone too far. These unpopular opinions explain why some feminists disassociated themselves from Stanton and looked exclusively to Anthony for leadership. Stanton also helped compi le three of the six volumes of the less controversial History of Woman Suffrage, published from 1881 to 1886, with coauthor Matilda Joslyn Gage. On Stanton’s 80th birthday, she was honored at a gala in New York City’sMetropolitan THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH HAVE BEEN THE GREATEST STUMBLING BLOCKS IN THE WAY OF WOMEN ’S EMANCIPATION . —ELIZABETH CADY STANTON GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 334 STANTON, ELIZABETH CADY Opera House. Looking back at her life, she told a crowd of 6,000 people that she had been warned repeatedly against organizing the Seneca Falls convention. People told her it was a huge mistake because God had set the bounds of a woman’s world and she should be satisfied with it. Stanton remarked that it was exactly this type of repressive attitude that led to her embrace of the women’s movement. Stanton died October 26, 1902, in New York City, at the age of 86. Although she did not witness the passage of the NINETEENTH AMENDMENT , which gave nearly 25 million U.S. women the right to vote in 1920, she left her imprint on it. FURTHER READINGS Griffith, Elisabeth. 1984. In Her Own Right: The Life of Elizabeth Cady Stanton. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. 1898. Eighty Years and More: Reminiscences, 1815–1897. Reprint, 2002. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books. Wellman, Judith. 2004. The Road to Seneca Falls: Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the First Woman’s Rights Convention. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press. CROSS REFERENCE Temperance Movement. STAR CHAMBER An ancient high court of England, controlled by the monarch, which was abolished in 1641 by Parliament for abuses of power. The English court of Star Chamber was created by King Henry VII in 1487 and was named for a room with stars painted on the ceiling in the royal palace of Westminster where the court sat. The Star Chamber was an instrument of the monarch and consisted of royal councilors and two royal judges. The jurisdiction of the court was based on the royal prerogative of administering justice in cases not remediable in the regular courts of law. The Star Chamber originally assisted with some administrative matters, but by the 1530s it had become a pure court, relieving the king of the burden of hearing cases personally. It was a court of EQUITY, granting remedies unavailable in the COMMON-LAW COURTS. The court was an informal body that dispensed with “due process” as it was then understood. During Henry VII’s reign (1485–1509), about half the cases involved real property. Throughout the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the Star Chamber became a useful tool in dealing with cases involving members of the aristocracy who often defied the authority of the regular courts. It was during this period that the court acquired criminal jurisdiction, hearing cases on issues concerning the security of the realm, such as SEDITION,criminalLIBEL, CONSPIRACY,andFORGERY.Later,FRAUD an d the pun- ishment of judges came within its jurisdiction. The importance of the Star Chamber in- creased during the reigns of James I (1603–25) and Charles I (1625–49). Under Archbishop William Laud, the court became a tool of royal oppression, seeking out and punishing religious and political dissidents. In the 1630s Laud used the Star Chamber to persecute a group of Puritan leaders, most of whom came from the gentry, subjecting them to the pillory and CORPORAL PUNISHMENT . Though the Star Chamber could not mete out CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, it inflicted every- thing short of death upon those found guilty. During this time the court met in secret, extracting evidence by torturing witnesses and handing out punishments that included mutila- tion, life imprisonment, and enormous fines. It turned equity’s traditionally broad discretion into a complete disregard for the law. The Star Chamber sometimes acted on mere rumors in order to suppress opposition to the king. The Star Cha mber’s ARBITRARY use of power and the cruel punishments it inflicted produced a wave of opposition from Puritans, advocates of common-law courts , and others opposed to the reign of Charles I. In 1641 the Long Parliament abolished the court and made reparations to some of its victims. The term star chamber has come to mean any lawless and oppressive tribunal, especially one that meets in secret. The abuses of the Star Chamber influenced the Founding Fathers, who developed the concept of DUE PROCESS OF LAW in the U.S. Constitution in part as a reaction to the arbitrary use of judicial power displayed by the Star Chamber. FURTHER READINGS Elton, G. R. 1974. Star Chamber Stories. New York: Barnes & Noble. Guy, J. A. 1977. The Cardinal’s Court: The Impact of Thomas Wolsey in Star Chamber. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield. CROSS REFERENCE English Law. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION STAR CHAMBER 335 STARE DECISIS Stare decisis is a Latin statement that means Let the decision stand. Stare decisis is the policy of courts to abide by or adhere to prin ciples established by decisions in earlier cases. In the United States and England, the COMMON LAW has traditionally adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle, known as STARE DECISIS,distinguishes the common law from civil-law systems, which give great weight to codes of laws and the opinions of scholars explaining them. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered a ques- tion, the same question in other cases must elicit the same response from the same court or lower courts in that jurisdiction. The principle of stare decisis was not always applied with uniform strictness. In medieval England, COMMON-LAW COURTS looked to earlier cases for guidance, but they could reject those they considered bad law. Courts also placed less than complete reliance on prior decisions because there was a lack of reliable written reports of cases. Official reports of cases heard in various courts began to appear in the United States in the early 1800s, but semiofficial reports were not produced in England until 1865. When published reports became available, lawyers and judges finally had direct access to cases and could more accurately interpret prior decisions. For stare decisis to be effective, each jurisdic- tion must have one highest court to declare what the law is in a precedent-setting case. The U.S. SUPREME COURT and the state supreme courts serve as precedential bodies, resolving conflicting interpretations of law or dealing with issues of first impression. Whatever these courts decide becomes judicial precedent. In the United States, courts seek to follow precedent whenever possible, seeking to maintain stability and continuity in the law. Devotion to stare decisis is considered a mark of judicial restraint, limiting a judge’s ability to determine the outcome of a case in a way that he or she might choose if it were a matter of first impression. Take, for example, the precedent set in ROE V. WADE (410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147), the 1973 decision that defined a woman’srighttochoose ABORTION as a funda- mental constitutional right. Despite the contro- versy engendered by the decision and calls for its repudiation, a majority of the justices, including some conservatives who might have decided Roe differently, have invoked stare decisis in succeed- ing abortion cases. Nevertheless, the prin ciple of stare decisis has always been tempered with a conviction that prior decisions must comport with notions of good reason or they can be overruled by the highest court in the jurisdiction. The principle also finds its way into political debates over the proper role of justices and concerns about judicial activism. The confirmation hearings conducted by the SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, from the failed nomination of Robert Bork in 1987 to the successful confirmation of SONIA SOTOMAYOR in 2009, have been filled with discussions about stare decisis. The U.S. Supreme Court rarely overturns one of its precedents, but when it does, the ruling usually signifies a new way of looking at an important legal issue. For example, in the landmark case BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION (347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 [1954]), the Supreme Court repudiated the separate-but- equal doctrine it endorsed in PLESSY V. FERGUSON (163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256 [1896]). The Court ignored stare decisis, renouncing a legal precedent that had legiti- mated racial SEGREGATION for almost sixty years. FURTHER READINGS Brewer, Scott. 1998. Precedents, Statutes, and Analysis of Legal Concepts. New York: Garland. Barron, Jerome, and Thomas Dienes. 2002. Constitutional Law in a Nutshell, 5th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson West. MacCormick, D. Neil, Robert S. Summers, and Arthur L. Goodhart, eds. 1997. Interpreting Precedents: A Com- parative Study. Brookfield, Vt.: Dartmouth. CROSS REFERENCES Case Law, Common Law, Constitutional Law, Judicial Review, Precedent. v STARR, KENNETH WINSTON Kenneth Starr has served as a judge on the court of appeals, as U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL, and came to national attention as the INDEPENDENT COUNSEL who investigated President BILL CLINTON and his administration. Appointed as independent counsel in 1994, Starr garnered both vilifica- tion and praise for his investigation into the Arkansas land deal known as WHITEWATER and the investigation into the president’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, a young White House in tern. Starr was born in Vernon, Texas, on July 21, 1946, to Willie and Vannie Starr. His fathe r was GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 336 STARE DECISIS a minister for the Church of Christ in Thalia, Texas; he also barbered and sold milk from the family cow. The children had a strict upbringing commensurate with their father’s calling. When Starr was young, the family moved to San Antonio, where he was elected class president of Sam Houston High during his junior and senior years. He first became interested in the political process during the 1960 presidential campaign between JOHN F. KENNEDY and RICHARD M. NIXON. After high school graduation, Starr attended Harding College, a school affiliated with the Church of Christ and located in Searcy, Arkansas. To help defray his expenses, he sold Bibles door-to-door. According to one of his roommates, Starr did not deviate from his conservative upbringing. Nevertheless, as an editor of the college newspaper, Starr reportedly defended the rights of VIETNAM WAR protesters, although he supported the war. To better pursue his interest in politics, Starr transferred to GEORGE WASHINGTON Univer- sity, gradu ating in 1968. He obtained a master’s degree from Brown University, then attended Duke University Law School. At Duke he served as an editor of the Duke Law Journal. After graduation in 1973, Starr clerked for a federal appellate judge in the District of Columbia, worked briefly as an associate in a law firm, then was selected to clerk for Supreme Court Chief Justice WARREN E. BURGER. In private practice after his clerkship, Starr became acquainted with WILLIAM FRENCH SMITH. When RONALD REAGAN ap pointed Smith to be attorney general in 1981, Starr joined the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. Starr’s typically conservative opinions generally meshed well with those of the Reagan administration. However, Starr disagreed with the administration when it supported a Christian evangelical college’s efforts to retain certain tax benefits after it was disclosed that the institution had discriminated against minorities. Reagan rewarded Starr with an appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which is considered the most presti- gious federal appellate court. In 1983, at age 37, Starr was the youngest person ever to be Kenneth Winston Starr 1946– ▼▼ ▼▼ 1950 2000 1975 1946 Born, Vernon, Tex. ❖ ◆ ◆ 1973 Received J.D. from Duke University 1981 Joined Justice Department 1983–89 Judge on U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 1989–93 Served as U.S. solicitor general ◆◆◆ 1994–99 Served as independent counsel over Whitewater affair 1999 Testified in Senate hearings against extension of Independent Counsel Act; resigned as independent counsel, returned to private practice 1961-73 Vietnam War ◆ ◆ ◆ 1999 Impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton 2000 U.S. Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore decision halted presidential vote recount in Florida 2001 September 11 terrorist attacks 2002 First Among Equals published 2004 Appointed dean of Pepperdine University’s School of Law Kenneth Starr. PAUL SAKUMA-POOL/ GETTY IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION STARR, KENNETH WINSTON 337 . District of Columbia 198 9 93 Served as U.S. solicitor general ◆◆◆ 199 4 99 Served as independent counsel over Whitewater affair 199 9 Testified in Senate hearings against extension of Independent Counsel. Starr 194 6– ▼▼ ▼▼ 195 0 2000 197 5 194 6 Born, Vernon, Tex. ❖ ◆ ◆ 197 3 Received J.D. from Duke University 198 1 Joined Justice Department 198 3– 89 Judge on U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of. requirement. The issue of standing is more than a technical aspect of the judicial process. A grant GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 328 STANDING or denial of standing determines