Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

25 

Opinion of the Court 

plaintiff  have  standing  to  sue.  Standing  requires  more
than just a “keen interest in the issue.”  Hollingsworth v. 
Perry, 570 U. S. 693, 700 (2013).  It requires allegations—
and,  eventually,  proof—that  the  plaintiff  “personal[ly]” 
suffered a concrete and particularized injury in connection
with the conduct about which he complains.  Spokeo, Inc. 
v.  Robins,  578  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2016)  (slip  op.,  at  7).    In  a 
case arising from an alleged violation of the Establishment 
Clause, a plaintiff must show, as in other cases, that he is
“directly affected by the laws and practices against which
[his]  complaints  are  directed.”  School  Dist.  of  Abington 
Township  v.  Schempp,  374  U. S.  203,  224,  n.  9  (1963). 
That is an issue here because the entry restrictions apply 
not to plaintiffs themselves but to others seeking to enter
the United States. 

Plaintiffs  first  argue  that  they  have  standing  on  the
ground  that  the  Proclamation  “establishes  a  disfavored
faith” and violates “their own right to be free from federal 
[religious]  establishments.”  Brief  for  Respondents  27–28 
(emphasis  deleted).    They  describe  such  injury  as  “spirit-
ual and dignitary.”  Id., at 29. 

We  need  not  decide  whether  the  claimed  dignitary  in-
terest  establishes  an  adequate  ground  for  standing.  The 
three  individual  plaintiffs  assert  another,  more  concrete 
injury: the alleged real-world effect that the Proclamation 
has had in keeping them separated from certain relatives 
who seek to enter the country.  See ibid.; Town of Chester 
v.  Laroe  Estates,  Inc.,  581  U. S.  ___,  ___–___  (2017)  (slip 
op., at 5–6) (“At least one plaintiff must have standing to
seek each form of relief requested in the complaint.”).  We 
agree  that  a  person’s  interest  in  being  united  with  his
relatives is sufficiently concrete and particularized to form
the  basis  of  an  Article  III  injury  in  fact.  This  Court  has 
previously  considered  the  merits  of  claims  asserted  by
United  States  citizens  regarding  violations  of  their  per-
sonal  rights  allegedly  caused  by  the  Government’s  exclu-