Twin Metals Minnesota LLC v. United States of America

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff did not have standing to challenge Army's intelligence-gathering investigation because it did not threaten cognizable interest of the plaintiffs
• holding that an allegation of mere \subjective 'chill' \ does not create a justiciable controversy
• holding that “chilling effect” claim must still be rooted in “specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm” to convey standing
• holding that an allegation of mere “subjective ‘chill’ ” does not create a justiciable controversy
• holding that “[ajllegations of a subjective ‘chill’ are not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm” (emphasis added)
• holding that plaintiffs who alleged a “subjective chill” of their First Amendment rights failed to establish “specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).