Opinion ID: 3039142
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Travel Ban

Text: [2] Sacks has standing to challenge the Travel Ban and the government does not contend otherwise. The Prepenalty Notice that explained the charge against him explicitly mentioned his violation of the prohibition on travel to and currency-related travel transactions within Iraq. Where the “plaintiff is himself an object of the action (or forgone action) at issue . . . there is ordinarily little question that the action or inaction has caused him injury, and that a judgment preventing or requiring the action will redress it.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561-62. The government, through the Ocwen Federal 17332 SACKS v. OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL Bank, now seeks to collect a civil penalty from Sacks for violating the Travel Ban. A civil fine is a pecuniary injury, and “[p]ecuniary injury is clearly a sufficient basis for standing.” Cent. Ariz. Water Conserv. Dist. v. EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1537 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).