For standing, which statement about imminence is correct?

For standing, which statement about imminence is correct?

• A. A threatened injury must be certainly impending to support standing.
• B. Any potential future harm, even if speculative, supports standing.
• C. Imminence is not a factor in standing.
• D. A mere concern about policy outcomes suffices for standing.

Answer: (A)

Imminence in standing means the plaintiff’s claimed injury must be concrete and about to occur, not merely a distant or speculative possibility. Saying the threatened injury must be certainly impending captures that idea: there has to be a real, imminent threat that would materialize if the challenged action goes forward. That constraint prevents courts from ruling on abstract concerns or hypothetical future harms. If a plaintiff could sue just because some future policy might change, or because they worry about unknown outcomes, the courts would be flooded with speculative disputes. That’s why other statements aren’t right: standing isn’t satisfied by mere future conjecture or by concern about policy outcomes, and imminence is indeed a factor.

Imminence in standing means the plaintiff’s claimed injury must be concrete and about to occur, not merely a distant or speculative possibility. Saying the threatened injury must be certainly impending captures that idea: there has to be a real, imminent threat that would materialize if the challenged action goes forward. That constraint prevents courts from ruling on abstract concerns or hypothetical future harms.

If a plaintiff could sue just because some future policy might change, or because they worry about unknown outcomes, the courts would be flooded with speculative disputes. That’s why other statements aren’t right: standing isn’t satisfied by mere future conjecture or by concern about policy outcomes, and imminence is indeed a factor.