Could I have a case reference please?
(regarding my statement that: “...the US Supreme Court has held - without exception - that a person must have standing to bring a Constitutional Challenge.” )
Sure. Here are just a few of the dozens (and dozens) of SCOTUS cases addressing a litigant's standing to bring a constitutional challenge:
Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 127 S.Ct. 2553 (2007) (
recognizing standing requirement and finding that organization
lacked standing to challenge government faith-based initiatives as unconstitutional);
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 126 S.Ct. 1854 (2006) (
recognizing standing requirement and finding that state taxpayers
lacked standing to challenge award of state franchise tax credit to manufacturer as unconstitutional);
Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 125 S.Ct. 564 (2004) (
recognizing standing requirement and finding that attorney
lacked standing to challenge, on behalf of potential future clients, a state statute denying counsel to certain criminal defendants as unconstitutional);
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (1997) (
recognizing standing requirement and holding that Congress cannot erase requirement by granting someone who would not otherwise have standing; finding that Congress members
lacked standing to challenge Line Item Veto Act as unconstitutional);
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 117 S.Ct. 1055 (1997(
recognizing standing requirement and finding that state employee
lacked standing to challenge state law recognizing English as official language; interest shared generally with public at large in proper application of Constitution and laws is insufficient to confer standing upon party to sue, under Article III of Constitution);
Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 106 S.Ct. 1697 (1986) (
recognizing standing requirement and finding that doctor
had standing to challenge constitutionality of abortion law that posed threat of criminal prosecution to him);
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750-51, 104 S.Ct. 3315 (1984(
recognizing standing requirement and finding that parents of black children attending public schools
lacked standing to prevent the government form violating the law in granting tax exemptions to private schools who continued to discriminate based on race; claim of injury to their children's diminished ability to receive an education in a racially integrated school, although a judicially cognizable injury, failed because the alleged injury was not fairly traceable to the government's conduct that was challenged as unlawful);
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 102 S.Ct. 752 (1982) (
recognizing standing requirement and finding that organization
lacked standing to challenge governmental transfer of property to religious organization as unconstitutional);
County Court of Ulster County, N. Y. v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 99 S.Ct. 2213 (1979) (
recognizing standing requirement; stating that a party has standing to challenge constitutionality of a statute only insofar as it has adverse impact on his own rights and, as a general rule, if there is no constitutional defect in application of statute to a litigant, he does not have standing to argue that statute would be unconstitutional if applied to third parties in hypothetical situations);
Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. , 438 U.S. 59, 98 S.Ct. 2620 (1978) (
recognizing standing requirement and finding that persons who lived near proposed nuclear power plant
had standing to challenge law limiting liability for nuclear accidents as unconstitutional);
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 95 S.Ct. 2197 (1975) (
recognizing standing requirement and finding that organizations
lacked standing to challenge zoning laws as unconstitutional and in violation of statutes);
U. S. v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 94 S.Ct. 2940 (1974) (
recognizing standing requirement and finding that taxpayer
lacked standing to challenge CIA expenditures as unconstitutional);
Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 94 S.Ct. 2925 (1974(
recognizing standing requirement and finding that citizens/taxpayers,
including reservists and former reservists lacked standing to challenge armed forces reserve membership of members of Congress as unconstitutional);
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S.Ct. (1942) (
recognizing standing requirement and finding that taxpayers
had standing to challenge expenditures on grounds that they violated 1st Amendment Establishment Clause)