219 U.S. 346, 31 S.Ct. 250, 55 L.Ed. 246 (1911). The requirement of standing is “rooted in the traditional understanding of a case or controversy.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016). To bring suit,. Plaintiffs must have “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues” before the court. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). The “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing is that for each claim, each plaintiff must allege an actual or imminent injury that is traceable- to the defendant and redressable by the court. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-62, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (<HOLDING>); see Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw
holding wildlifeconservation organizations lacked standing to seek injunctive relief against the secretary of the interiors interpretation of the endangered species act where  organization  members harm was the endangering of wild animals in sri lanka but where the members had no current plans to go to sri lanka to observe the animals holding an organization had standing because some of its individual members did holding that an organization whose members are injured may represent those members even where the organization itself cannot show injury holding that an organization whose members were potential targets of future prosecutions had standing to seek injunctive relief holding that members of congress lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the line item veto act