Article III requirements and the prudential requirements for each claim asserted. See Ler-man v. Bd. of Elections in City of New York, 232 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir.2000) (citing Sec’y of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U.S. 947, 955, 104 S.Ct. 2839, 81 L.Ed.2d 786 (1984) (“In addition to the limitations on standing imposed by Art. Ill’s case-or-controversy requirement, there are prudential considerations that limit the challenges courts are willing to hear.”)); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982) (“The term ‘standing’ subsumes a blend of constitutional requirements and prudential considerations!).]”); Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 112, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (<HOLDING>). As such, the court now turns to the
holding that constitutional requirements under article iii and prudential requirement that plaintiffs be the proper proponents of the particular legal rights on which they base their suits are distinct aspects of standing inquiry recognizing that standing is an essential component of our appellate jurisdiction and permitting party to appeal only after determining that they had met the requirements of article iii standing holding that official proponents of californias proposition 8 lacked article iii standing in federal court holding that because article iii standing is jurisdictional it must be decided before other legal issues holding that article iii constitutional standing must be addressed before considering lanham act prudential standing