The prudential doctrine of standing requires that "the plaintiff generally ...assert his own legal rights and interest, and cannot rest his claim for relief on the legal rights or interest of third parties."  Warth, 422 U.S. at 499.
The Supreme Court has instructed that
Federal courts must hesitate before resolving a controversy, even one within their constitutional power to resolve, on the basis of the rights of third persons not parties to the litigation. The reasons are two.  First, the courts should not adjudicate such rights unnecessarily, and it may be that in fact the holders of those rights either do not wish to assert them, or will be able to enjoy them regardless of whether the in-court litigant is successful or not (citations omitted).  Second, third parties themselves usually will be the best proponents of their own rights.  The courts depend on effective advocacy, and therefore should prefer to construe legal rights only when the most effective advocates of those rights are before them.
Singleton v. (Vulrf, Jr., 428 U.S. 106, 113-14 (1976).
Accordingly, only in limited circumstances will a plaintiff be permitted to assert the rights of third parties.  First, plaintiff must show that, based on his relationship with the third party whose right he seeks to assert, the enjoyment of that right is "inextricably bound up with the activity the litigant wishes to pursue."  Jd. at 114.  Second, the relationship between the litigant and the third party must be such that the litigant is fully, or very nearly, as effective a proponent of the right as the latter.  Jd. at 115.  Third, there must be some genuine
///
14