Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-309_4f15.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

CARNEY v. ADAMS 

Syllabus 

and  does  not  show  standing.    Hollingsworth  v.  Perry,  570  U. S.  693, 
706.  Pp. 4–5.

(b) Adams has not shown the necessary “injury in fact.”  To establish 
that he will suffer a concrete, particularized, and imminent injury be-
yond  a  generalized  grievance,  Adams  must  at  least  show  that  he  is 
likely to apply to become a judge in the reasonably foreseeable future, 
if he were not barred because of political affiliation.  He can show this 
only if he is “ ‘able and ready’ ” to apply.  See Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 
U. S. 244, 262.  Adams’ only supporting evidence is two statements he 
made that he wanted to be, and would apply to be, a judge on any of 
Delaware’s five courts.  Those statements must be considered in the 
context of the record.  Pp. 5–9.

(c) The record evidence fails to show that, at the time he commenced
the lawsuit, Adams was “able and ready” to apply for a judgeship in 
the  reasonably  foreseeable  future.    First,  Adams’  statements  stand 
alone, without any other supporting evidence, like efforts to determine
possible judicial openings or other such preparations.  Second, the con-
text suggests an abstract, generalized grievance, not an actual desire
to become a judge.  For example, Adams did not apply for numerous
existing judicial vacancies while he was a registered Democrat and el-
igible for those vacancies.  He then read a law review article arguing 
that Delaware’s judicial eligibility requirements unconstitutionally ex-
cluded independents, changed his political affiliation to independent, 
and filed this lawsuit shortly thereafter.  Third, a holding that Adams’
few words of general intent were sufficient to show an “injury in fact” 
would significantly weaken the longstanding legal doctrine preventing
this Court from providing advisory opinions.  Finally, precedent sup-
ports the conclusion that an injury in fact requires an intent that is 
concrete.  See, e.g., Lujan, supra.  And arguably similar cases in which
standing was found all contained more evidence that the plaintiff was 
“able and ready” than Adams has provided.  See, e.g., Adarand Con-
structors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200.  Pp. 9–13. 

922 F. 3d. 166, vacated and remanded. 

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Mem-
bers joined, except BARRETT, J., who took no part in the consideration or 
decision of the case.  SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a concurring opinion.