A group challenges the vagueness of a federal statute criminalizing “unfair advantage” in stock trading, but has no imminent injury. The proper conclusion is:

A group challenges the vagueness of a federal statute criminalizing “unfair advantage” in stock trading, but has no imminent injury. The proper conclusion is:

• A. They have standing because they challenge constitutionality.
• B. They have standing because the remedy would redress others' injury.
• C. They lack standing because they have no imminent injury.
• D. They have standing because the statute could be enforced against others.

Answer: (C)

Standing requires an injury in fact that is concrete and either actual or imminent. For a pre-enforcement challenge to a statute, the plaintiff must show a credible threat of enforcement or some imminent risk of harm from enforcement. Merely having an interest in the statute’s constitutionality or worrying that others might be prosecuted does not qualify as an injury in fact. In this scenario, the group has no imminent injury: they are not currently subject to the law, and there’s no concrete plan showing enforcement against them in the near future. Without that imminent or concrete injury, the case cannot proceed, because the courts require a real, particularized stake in the outcome. Challenging the statute’s constitutionality alone does not confer standing. Likewise, arguments that redress would aid others or that enforcement could occur against others do not satisfy injury-in-fact or redressability for the plaintiff themselves. Thus, the proper conclusion is that they lack standing because they have no imminent injury.

Standing requires an injury in fact that is concrete and either actual or imminent. For a pre-enforcement challenge to a statute, the plaintiff must show a credible threat of enforcement or some imminent risk of harm from enforcement. Merely having an interest in the statute’s constitutionality or worrying that others might be prosecuted does not qualify as an injury in fact.

In this scenario, the group has no imminent injury: they are not currently subject to the law, and there’s no concrete plan showing enforcement against them in the near future. Without that imminent or concrete injury, the case cannot proceed, because the courts require a real, particularized stake in the outcome.

Challenging the statute’s constitutionality alone does not confer standing. Likewise, arguments that redress would aid others or that enforcement could occur against others do not satisfy injury-in-fact or redressability for the plaintiff themselves.

Thus, the proper conclusion is that they lack standing because they have no imminent injury.