28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., based on an alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the FTCA does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States or federal agencies for constitutional torts. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 477-78, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994). In addition, suits against the United States Supreme Court, the other named defendant, are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554-555, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). Edwards also lacks standing to bring the instant action because she has failed to allege that any constitutional violation she was a victim of is traceable to the United States. See Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Serv. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-181, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) (<HOLDING>). The public school officials, who allegedly
holding that in order to establish standing a plaintiff must show 1 it has suffered an injury in fact  2 the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and 3 it is likely as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision holding that the decedents estate had standing because the traditional requirement that the plaintiff show an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the conduct of the defendant is met by the allegation in the complaint that the defendants actions resulted in the diminishment of the assets of the estate holding that the injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action to be redressable by the court holding that to have standing a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact a casual connection between the injury and that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision holding that in order to establish standing the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling must not be too speculative