Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/13-193_omq2.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

8 

SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST v. DRIEHAUS 

Opinion of the Court 

U. S.  490,  498  (1975)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted). 
An injury sufficient to satisfy Article III must be “concrete
and  particularized”  and  “actual  or  imminent,  not  ‘conjec-
tural’ or ‘hypothetical.’ ”  Lujan, supra, at 560 (some inter-
nal  question  marks  omitted).  An  allegation  of  future
injury  may  suffice  if  the  threatened  injury  is  “certainly
impending,” or there is a “ ‘substantial risk’ that the harm 
will occur.”  Clapper, 568 U. S., at ___, ___, n. 5 (slip op., at 
10,  15,  n. 5)  (emphasis  deleted  and  internal  quotation
marks omitted). 

“ ‘ The  party  invoking  federal  jurisdiction  bears  the 
burden  of  establishing’  standing.”  Id.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at
12).  “[E]ach element must be supported in the same way 
as  any  other  matter  on  which  the  plaintiff  bears  the  bur-
den of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence 
required at the successive stages of the litigation.”  Lujan, 
supra, at 561. 

B 
One  recurring  issue  in  our  cases  is  determining  when
the threatened enforcement of a law creates an Article III 
injury.  When an individual is subject to such a threat, an
actual  arrest,  prosecution,  or  other  enforcement  action  is
not  a  prerequisite  to  challenging  the  law.    See  Steffel  v. 
Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 459 (1974) (“[I]t is not necessary 
that  petitioner  first  expose  himself  to  actual  arrest  or
prosecution  to  be  entitled  to  challenge  a  statute  that  he 
claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights”); see 
also  MedImmune,  Inc.  v.  Genentech,  Inc.,  549  U. S.  118, 
128–129 (2007) (“[W]here threatened action by government
is  concerned,  we  do  not  require  a  plaintiff  to  expose  him-
self  to  liability  before  bringing  suit  to  challenge  the  basis 
Instead,  we  have  permitted  pre-
for  the  threat”). 
enforcement  review  under  circumstances  that  render  the 
threatened enforcement sufficiently imminent.  Specifically, 
we  have  held  that  a  plaintiff  satisfies  the  injury-in-fact