Narrative Opinion Summary
The appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has been considered, and the court affirms the district court's order dated May 4, 2010. The dismissal was upheld due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the appellant failed to demonstrate an injury sufficient to establish Article III standing. Citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the court emphasized that to meet the constitutional minimum for standing, a plaintiff must show an injury that is concrete, particularized, actual, and imminent, rather than conjectural or hypothetical. This decision will not be published according to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, and the Clerk is instructed to withhold the issuance of the mandate for seven days following any timely petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc.
Legal Issues Addressed
Article III Standing Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the standard for constitutional standing, requiring a concrete and particularized injury that is actual and imminent.
Reasoning: Citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the court emphasized that to meet the constitutional minimum for standing, a plaintiff must show an injury that is concrete, particularized, actual, and imminent, rather than conjectural or hypothetical.
Issuance of Mandatesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Clerk is directed to delay the mandate issuance to allow time for any petitions for rehearing.
Reasoning: The Clerk is instructed to withhold the issuance of the mandate for seven days following any timely petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc.
Non-Publication of Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision of the court will not be published, following specific procedural rules of the circuit.
Reasoning: This decision will not be published according to D.C. Circuit Rule 36.
Subject Matter Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the dismissal of the case due to the appellant's failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
Reasoning: The dismissal was upheld due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the appellant failed to demonstrate an injury sufficient to establish Article III standing.