Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-309_4f15.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

6 

CARNEY v. ADAMS 

Opinion of the Court 

rion.  We have examined the record that was before the Dis-
trict Court at summary judgment, keeping in mind that Ad-
ams  bears  the  burden  of  establishing  standing  as  of  the
time he brought this lawsuit and maintaining it thereafter. 
Lujan, supra, at 561 (plaintiff bears the burden of proving 
standing);  Friends  of  the  Earth,  Inc.  v.  Laidlaw  Environ-
mental  Services  (TOC),  Inc.,  528  U. S.  167,  191  (2000) 
(standing is assessed “at the time the action commences”); 
id., at 189 (“ ‘The requisite personal interest that must exist
at  the  commencement  of  the  litigation  . . .  must  continue 
throughout  its  existence’ ”);  see  also  Lujan,  supra,  at  569, 
n. 4.  And we conclude that Adams did not show the neces-
sary “injury in fact.”

Adams suffered a “generalized grievance” of the kind we
have just described.  He, like all citizens of Delaware, must 
live and work within a State that (in his view) imposes un-
constitutional  requirements  for  eligibility  on  three  of  its 
courts.  Lawyers,  such  as  Adams,  may  feel  sincerely  and 
strongly that Delaware’s laws should comply with the Fed-
eral Constitution.  Accord, Hollingsworth, 570 U. S., at 706. 
But that kind of interest does not create standing.  Rather, 
the question is whether Adams will suffer a “ ‘personal and 
individual’ ”  injury  beyond  this  generalized  grievance—an
injury that is concrete, particularized, and imminent rather 
than “conjectural or hypothetical.”  Id., at 705–706. 

Adams  says  he  has.  He  claims  that  Delaware’s  major 
party  requirement  in  fact  prevents  him,  a  political  inde-
pendent, from having his judicial application considered for 
three of Delaware’s courts.  To prove this kind of harm, how-
ever, Adams must at least show that he is likely to apply to 
become a judge in the reasonably foreseeable future if Del-
aware did not bar him because of political affiliation.  And 
our  cases  make  clear  that  he  can  show  this  only  if  he  is
“ ‘able  and  ready’ ”  to  apply.    See  Gratz  v.  Bollinger,  539 
U. S.  244,  262  (2003);  Northeastern  Fla.  Chapter,  Associ-
ated Gen. Contractors of America v. Jacksonville, 508 U. S.