Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections · ¶90

We rejected Lyons's legal action on standing grounds, holding that he had failed to establish a “real and immediate threat” of future harm. Id., at 105. None of Lyons's appeals to fairness or common sense suffced to persuade a majority of this Court that he had Article III standing. It did not matter, for instance, that Lyons had almost died from an illegal chokehold only five months prior to filing his complaint. See ibid. Nor did it matter that “no less than 16 persons ha[d] died following the use of a chokehold by an LAPD police officer” in the preceding decade. Id., at 115– 116 (Marshall, J., dissenting). Because those “odds” did not suggest a substantial risk of harm to Lyons in the future, we said, he was not entitled to sue for injunctive relief. Id., at 108 (majority opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted). So, despite the grievous wrong and physical harm that Lyons (and…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.