Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that citizens do not have Article III standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state statute in federal court unless they possess a "direct stake" in the outcome.

On October 31, 1979, the district court granted the physicians' motion for a temporary restraining order in Charles v. Carey, 627 F.2d 772 (7th Cir.

Eugene Diamond, on the basis of his conscientious objection to abortions, his status as a pediatrician, and as a parent of a minor daughter, filed a motion to intervene as a defendant of the law.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, said "because the State alone is entitled to create a legal code, only the State has the kind of 'direct stake' identified in the Court's standing doctrine in defending the standards embodied in that code."

The Court also said that Article III standing "is not to be placed in the hands of 'concerned bystanders,' who will use it simply as a 'vehicle for the vindication of value interests.'"