1	having this matter resolved in this court. Renne, Id.
2	A legal action brought by an individual who lacks standing
3	does not qualify as an Article III "case or controversy," and
4	federal courts have no power to decide it. Arlzonans for
5	Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 61, 117 S.Ct. 1055,
6	1067 (1997). Thus, "[s]tanding is a threshold question in every
7	federal case because if the litigants do not have standing to
8	raise their claims the court is without authority to consider the
9	merits of the action." Freedom From Religion Found., Inc. v.
10	Zieike, 845 F.2d 1463, 1467 (7th Cir. 1988). Establishing his
11	standing is an "indispensable part of the plaintiff's case" upon
12	which Newdow bears the burden of proof. Lujan v. Defenders of
13	Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992).
14	To carry this burden. Newdow must satisfy three
15	requirements:
16	First, he must demonstrate that he has suffered from an
17	"injury in fact". Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155, 110
18	S.Ct. 1717, 1723 (1990).
19	Second, there must be causation--the injury must be
20	traceable to the defendant's conduct. Simon v. Eastern Ky.
21	Welfare Rights Organization^ 426 U.S. 26, 41-42, 96 S.Ct. 1917,
22	1925-1926.
23	Third, there must be redressability--the likelihood that the
24	requested relief will redress the alleged injury. Jd., at 45-46,
25	96 S.Ct. at 1927-1928.
26	As to the first element, Newdow must establish standing by
27	showing that he has already suffered an "...'injury in fact' --
28	an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete
	4