The Court should grant motion to dismiss because it lacks standing. Art. III of the Constitution establish federal courts jurisdiction over a case or a controversy. The Supreme Court has construed Article III asking to the plaintiff to demonstrate three elements: 1.That they suffered a concrete injury or that they are in imminent danger of suffering such a loss 2.That the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant 3.That a favorable court decision is likely to provide redress (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife) Under the first requirement the plaintiff must demonstrate an “injury in fact”, a concrete and certain harm that directly affects him. If the injury has not yet occurred, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a specific harm is highly likely to occur. In Dep’t of Commerce v. New York, the Supreme Court affirmed the plaintiffs’ standing. They showed that the introduction of a citizenship question on the census would have caused an undercount of people that would have led to a severe loss of federal funds. The violation of a statute it is not, by itself, a sufficient element to affirm standing. An individual and concrete injury must still be proved, considering the specific facts of each case (Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins). Anytime the party cannot show a palpable and actual injury, the claim must be considered speculative, because the injury may in fact never occur. The plaintiff has not suffered any harm, instead he is asserting a generalized grievance that is not protected under Article III (Clapper v Amnesty International, City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, Carney v. Adams) Another element of standing is redressability. Federal Courts will deny justiciability every time the plaintiff cannot show that he will benefit from an eventual victory. A benefit for the plaintiff must flow directly from a favorable ruling. In Linda S. v. Richard R., the claimant lacked standing because even a favorable ruling would not have resulted in financial support for the woman’s kid, given the lack of information about the father. (See also Simon v Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org) Related to the standing requirement as well, it is the concept of ripeness. A case is ripe when it is premature because the petitioner alleges an injury that might or might not occur, depending on future events. In International Longshoreman’s Union v. Boyd, the Court dismissed the challenge to a statute that had not yet been set in motion. Whether the statute would have produced an actual injury to the claimants was dependent on future events, making the injury merely hypothetical. In some situations, however, a claim can be admitted even before the injury happens, such as in the case of the pre-enforcement review. In such instances, a regulation can be subject to judicial review before being enforced, and therefore before causing an injury. In Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, the Supreme Court has stated that the claimants were put in the alternative of spending a high amount of money to assure compliance with a new labeling regulation and the risk of criminal prosecution. As the court underlined, withholding a court decision would have place a consistent hardship on the party. Hence, even if no injury had yet occurred, the case was not ripe, because the claimants could demonstrate that the regulation had a direct and immediate impact on them and that postponing the decision would pose an unbearable hardship on them.
