When can a party assert that a statute is unconstitutional?

When a party asserts a statute is unconstitutional, standing is not established merely because the party has been impacted by the statutory scheme to which the assertedly unconstitutional statute belongs. Instead, the courts have stated that [a]t a minimum, standing means a party must show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant, .... [Quoting Valley Forge College v. Americans United (1982) 454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700.] ... [I]t is well-settled law that the courts will not give their consideration to questions as to the constitutionality of a statute unless such consideration

[81 Cal.Rptr.3d 472]

is necessary to the determination of a real and vital controversy between the litigants in the particular case before it. It is incumbent upon a party to an action or proceeding who assails a law invoked in the course thereof to show that the provisions of the statute thus assailed are applicable to him and that he is injuriously affected thereby. [Citations.] [Quoting Worsley v. Municipal Court (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 409, 418, 176 Cal.Rptr. 324.] ( In re Tania S. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 728, 736-737, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 60.)