The Supreme Court has produced countless opinions interpreting the Speech Clause of the First Amendment, but it has had remarkably little to say about the Press Clause's command that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. This note will argue that the constitutional requirement that litigants must have standing to sue does not undercut the institutional view of the Press Clause. Part II of this note will summarize the institutional view of the Press Clause as it has been articulated and developed to date. Part III will introduce the black-letter requirements of standing and highlight the standing problems raised by the institutional view of the Press Clause. Part IV will demonstrate that injury to institutional Press Clause rights would satisfy standing doctrine's requirement of injury in fact. Part IV will argue that the doctrine of jus tertii should expand to accommodate suits under the Press Clause, just as it has expanded to accommodate overbreadth challenges under the Speech Clause.