United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 19, 2020*

Decided May 20, 2020

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge

No. 20-1352

JOSEF TSAU,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 20-cv-1021

Sharon Johnson Coleman,

Judge.

O R D E R

Josef Tsau sued the United States government, alleging that it has long funded 

the teaching of a religion in the guise of science, in violation of the First Amendment.

Through a “breakthrough scientific discovery,” Tsau says he has uncovered flaws in the

theories that underlie mainstream physics, thereby proving that the discipline is not a 

* The defendant was not served with process in the district court and is not 

participating in this appeal. We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument 

because the brief and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral 

argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 20-1352 Page 2

science but a religion founded on unsupported beliefs about the universe. By funding 

physics research and education, he explains, the federal government has improperly 

promoted this religion. Tsau asked the district court to “stop the corruption of our 

government to save our science, science education, and to protect the law of the First 

Amendment[.]” The court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,

concluding that Tsau lacked standing to sue because he had not alleged a concrete and 

particularized injury traceable to the government’s conduct.

On appeal, Tsau challenges the ruling that he lacked standing and asserts that he 

cannot get “the credit, the fame, and the financial benefit” from his discovery until the

government stops its unconstitutional funding of mainstream physics. These 

allegations, however, are insufficient to establish an injury in fact, a requirement for 

standing. Lujan v. Def. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). As the party invoking federal 

jurisdiction, Tsau needs to demonstrate that he suffered an injury that “affect[s] [him] in 

a personal and individual way” and is “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or 

‘hypothetical.’” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 n.1 (1992) (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 

149, 155 (1990)); see also Crabtree v. Experian Info. Sol., Inc., 948 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 

2020). And a bald assertion that the government has deprived him credit, fame, and

fortune is far-fetched, well beyond conjecture, and insufficient to confer standing.

See Crabtree, 948 F.3d at 880 (citing cases).

This is Tsau’s fifth suit against the government on the same theory, and each has 

been dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Tsau v. Nat’l Sci. Found., 

No. 17 CV 3966 (N.D. Ill. May 14, 2018); Tsau v. Nat’l Sci. Found., No. 10 C 6323 (N.D. Ill. 

Nov. 1, 2010); Tsau v. Nat’l Sci. Found., 04 C 5634 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 27, 2004); Tsau v. Nat’l 

Sci. Found., 00 CV 6 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2000). He is hereby warned that further frivolous 

litigation will subject him to fines and a possible filing bar under Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. 

v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995). 

AFFIRMED