In the case of ASARCO INC. et al. v. KADISH et al., the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over mining leases on public lands in Arizona, which were granted by state authorities to private companies including ASARCO Inc and FMC Corporation. The plaintiffs, led by Michael Kadish, argued that these leases violated federal law because they did not provide for maximum economic recovery of mineral resources or protect against environmental damage. The key issue was whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue even though they could not show any personal injury from the granting of these leases - instead their argument was based on an alleged violation of public rights and interests. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Kadish and his fellow plaintiffs, holding that while such "public actions" might be barred under federal law due to lack of individual harm suffered by the plaintiffs; it does not prevent them from being heard in state court where different rules about standing apply. Furthermore, once a state court decision has been made (as it had been here), then its validity can be reviewed by Federal courts including ultimately the US Supreme Court itself – regardless if those bringing suit would have lacked standing under federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for ASARCO INC. et al. v. KADISH et al., Justice Kennedy argued that the majority's decision to allow a case to proceed in federal court, despite its dismissal by state courts due to lack of standing, was incorrect and set a dangerous precedent. He contended that this ruling undermined principles of federalism and judicial restraint by allowing plaintiffs who were not directly injured or affected by an action to bring suit in federal court simply because they disagreed with it on ideological grounds. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential for abuse if any taxpayer could challenge government actions without showing direct harm or injury from those actions.