Trump v. California · ¶12

Two related doctrines of justiciability block the States’ suit. One is standing, which requires “an injury that is concrete, particularized, and imminent rather than ‘conjectural or hypothetical.’” Carney v. Adams, 592 U. S. 53, 60 (2020). The other is ripeness, which forbids federal courts to adjudicate disputes that are “dependent on ‘contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.’” Trump v. New York, 592 U. S. 125, 131 (2020) (per curiam). Because “standing is not dispensed in gross,” we address each challenged provision of the Order separately. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 431 (2021).

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.