Adam Elend v. Sun Dome, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that even when core political speech is implicated, a plaintiff must provide some “limitation on the universe of possibilities of when or where or how such a [future injury] might occur”
• explaining that § 702 removes governmental immunity from suits seeking “injunctive relief against federal agencies or employees acting in their official capacity”
• holding plaintiffs’ avowed intention to protest in similar manner at unspecified location and time did not allege Article III injury
• explaining that if an action “is not ripe because the factual predicate for the injury has not fully materialized, then it generally will not contain a concrete injury requisite for standing”
• explaining distinction between standing, which goes to identity of parties, and ripeness, which goes to timing
• explaining distinction between standing, which goes to identity of parties, and ripeness, which goes to timing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).