In the 1985 case Diamond et al. v. Charles et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a private individual does not have standing to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials refuse to do so, unless they can demonstrate direct harm or injury as a result of its enforcement. The case involved an Illinois law regulating abortions which was challenged by several physicians and patients. Dr.Charles intervened in defense of the law but failed to show how he would be personally injured if it were struck down, leading his appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court also addressed whether minors need parental consent for abortion procedures under this law, ruling that such requirements are constitutional provided there is an alternative procedure where minors can obtain approval without parental involvement (judicial bypass). However, because no minor plaintiffs were part of this lawsuit at hand, these issues were deemed moot and not decided upon.

In the dissenting opinion for Diamond et al. v. Charles et al., Justice Blackmun argued that Dr. Diamond, as a pediatrician and taxpayer, did not have standing to defend the constitutionality of an Illinois abortion law after state officials declined to do so. He contended that federal courts should not be used as forums for policy debates by individuals who are neither directly affected nor authorized representatives of those who are impacted by legislation in question. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's decision on procedural grounds, stating it had overstepped its judicial authority by deciding substantive issues without first addressing jurisdictional matters such as standing or mootness - principles fundamental to maintaining separation of powers within government branches.