To have standing, a plaintiff must show an imminent or actual injury. In a challenge to a pending statute with no enforcement, which statement is correct?

To have standing, a plaintiff must show an imminent or actual injury. In a challenge to a pending statute with no enforcement, which statement is correct?

• A. A plaintiff must demonstrate imminent injury; otherwise there is no standing.
• B. Standing may be established even before enforcement if enforcement is likely.
• C. Standing cannot be established solely on a hypothetical injury or desire to avoid future enforcement.
• D. Standing can be created by agreement between parties.

Answer: (C)

Standing requires an injury in fact that is concrete and either actual or imminent, with a possible redressability connection to the court’s decision. In a pre-enforcement challenge to a pending statute, the injury must come from a credible threat of enforcement against the plaintiff’s own conduct (or from actual enforcement). Merely having a hypothetical injury or a desire to avoid future enforcement does not create standing. That’s why the statement asserting you cannot establish standing based on a hypothetical injury or a mere wish to avoid enforcement is correct. If there is no enforcement yet, you need a real or imminent risk tied to the plaintiff’s situation; otherwise there is no standing. The other ideas fail because mere likelihood of enforcement isn’t enough without a concrete or imminent injury, and agreements between parties do not manufacture standing where no injury exists.

Standing requires an injury in fact that is concrete and either actual or imminent, with a possible redressability connection to the court’s decision. In a pre-enforcement challenge to a pending statute, the injury must come from a credible threat of enforcement against the plaintiff’s own conduct (or from actual enforcement). Merely having a hypothetical injury or a desire to avoid future enforcement does not create standing.

That’s why the statement asserting you cannot establish standing based on a hypothetical injury or a mere wish to avoid enforcement is correct. If there is no enforcement yet, you need a real or imminent risk tied to the plaintiff’s situation; otherwise there is no standing. The other ideas fail because mere likelihood of enforcement isn’t enough without a concrete or imminent injury, and agreements between parties do not manufacture standing where no injury exists.