NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 22

- 2938

_____________ NEW JERSEY SECOND AMENDMENT SOCIETY, A not for profit corporation of the State of New Jersey; ALEXANDER ROUBIAN, Individually and in his capacity as the President of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society and in his capacity as a reporter and j ournalist for www.NJ2A.org, Appellants

v.
NEW JERSEY PRES S ASSOCIATION; JOHN DOES 1

- 20, Fictitious names for the yet to be identified members

of the New Jersey State Police Department, Civilian Security and Decision Makers; PEGGY STEPHAN ARBITELL, Individually and in her capacity as

the business manager for defe ndant NJPA

_______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey ( D.C. No. 3

- 20

- cv
- 05228 ) District Judge: Honorable Michael A. Shipp

_______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

June 23 , 2023
Before: CHAGARES , Chief Judge , BIBAS , and MATEY , Circuit Judges

.

(Filed September 6, 2023 )2 _______________ OPINION 

_______________ MATEY, Circuit Judge

. The New Jersey Second Amendment Society and Alexander Roubian (“Appellants”) challenge d Roubian’s denied press credentials and entry into press briefing s
. Neither ha s standing to sue the New Jersey Press A ssociation (“NJPA”) or Peggy Arbitell ( collectively, “Appellees”) , so we will vacate the District Court ’s judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss without prejudice

. I.
NJPA annually issued p ress c redentials “ to news organization employees [and] independent contractors who have regular contact with ” first responders. Response Br. 1.
Roubian applied for one in 2018 but was denied because his “organization is a civil advocacy group with a targeted topic/audience,” not “a news organization covering news of a general nature.” App. 183. Two years later , and still without a pass, Roubian was denied entry into press briefing s with Govern or Phil Murphy . Appellants sued NJPA and
others , alleging violations of federal and state law. 1 After some defendants settled the

matter , the District Court dismissed with prejudice Appellants’ remaining claims

. Appellants appeal that decision

.

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I .O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

1 Appellants alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendment s, the New Jersey State Constitution, and New Jersey statutory and common law.3 II.
We begin and end with standing because “[t] he Constitution gives federal courts the power to adjudicate only genuine ‘ Cases ’ and ‘ Controversies. ’ ” California v. Texas , 141 S. Ct. 2104 , 2113 (2021) (quoting U.S. Const. art. III , § 2 )

. S tanding is a jurisdictional requirement, Ballentine v. United States , 486 F.3d 806 , 810 (3d Cir. 2007),

so when its conditions are unmet, we have no authority under Article III to consider the
merits of the case , In re Boy Scouts of Am. , 35 F.4th 149 , 156 (3d Cir. 2022). A plaintiff
ha s standing only if she “ allege [s] personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant ’ s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” California
v. Texas , 141 S. Ct. at 2113 (quoting Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Cuno , 547 U.S. 332, 342 (2006) ). Appellants have not

. First , Appellants contest Roubian’s exclusion from the 2020 press briefing s for lacking an acceptable entry credential

. But th at is not fairly traceable to NJPA ’s 2018
denial because the credentials are valid for only one year, and Roubian never alleged he applied again

. In other words, “ there was always a zero percent chance that ” Roubian
could have entered the 2020 briefing s with the 2018 credentials since they would have
lon g expired

. Finkelman v. Na t’ l Football League , 810 F.3d 187 , 198 (3d Cir. 2016)

. Arbitell’s statement to state police that Roubian lacked valid NJPA credentials do es nothing to change that fact. Appellants cannot sue Appellees for excluding Roubian from the briefings on this theory

. Second , Appellants challenge the denial of Roubian’s 2018 application for NJPA
credentials. But the factual allegations in Appellants’ S econd A mended C omplaint and4

filings before this Court center on one harm

— Roubian’s e xclusion from the 2020 press briefings. And Appellants “ must demonstrate standing for each claim [they] seek [] to press and for each form of relief that is sought.” Town of Chester v. Laroe Es t s
. , Inc. , 581
U.S. 433 , 439 (2017) (citation omitted). But, aga in, Roubian could not use a 2018 pass to
enter a 2020 event

. B ecause Appellants’ claimed injury is not fairly traceable to NJPA’s conduct, they lack standing to proceed with their suit.
III.
For these reaso ns, we will vacate the District Court’s judgment and remand with
instructions to dismiss without prejudice for lack of standing

.