Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reviewed the concept of judicial standing and affirmed that if the plaintiffs lacked standing, they could not maintain a case against the defendants.

The not-for-profit housing organization Metro-Act of Rochester joined with several Rochester taxpayers as well as low and moderate-income individuals of various racial and ethnic backgrounds were considered jointly as party-plaintiffs to this action.

However, the United States District Court dismissed the case, citing that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue.

The court was tasked to determine if the American rules of standing should be considered part of the 'case or controversy' clause of Article Three of the United States Constitution or, apart from that, if the court can hear cases on "generalized grievances" or in the interest of third parties where none of the complainants have standing.

The plaintiff's descriptions of their own meager financial situations and subsequent inability to live in Penfield were found by the Court to be the consequence of the economics and housing market of the area rather than any wrongdoing by the defendants.