" `[A] plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press' and `for each form of relief that is sought.'"

The party "asserting federal jurisdiction" must "carry the burden of establishing [its] standing under Article III."

The Court concluded that "state taxpayers have no standing under Article III to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers."

III, § 2. "If a dispute is not a proper case or controversy, the courts have no business deciding it, or expounding the law in the course of doing so."

In addition to standing, "[t] he doctrines of mootness, ripeness, and political question all originate in Article III's `case'or `controversy'requirement. "

The case or controversy requirement ensures that the federal judiciary respects "the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society."

Taxpayers ordinarily do not have standing to challenge federal or state expenditures that allegedly violate the Constitution.

"[N] o principle is more fundamental to the judiciary's proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies."

It is "presume [d] that federal courts lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record,"

To establish standing, "[a] plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief."