The U.S. government stated that the plaintiffs lack standing because they've never been detained and face no threat of detention.

The government also argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they had not suffered concrete harm from the program.

A federal district court in New Jersey dismissed the suit, ruling the plaintiffs lacked standing.

The first plaintiff consequently lacked the requisites for a universitas.

The suit was dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing.

The brief also argues that, even if there were jurisdiction, the case should be dismissed because plaintiff lacks standing.

Here too the Court relied on what it determined was a tenuous causal link to find that plaintiffs lacked standing.

The High Court held that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to bring the action as they were not the temple's legal owners.

The majority declined to rule on the legality of the program, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit.

The Court decided that the plaintiffs lacked standing.