Opinion ID: 186151
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ripeness and Standing

Text: 15 We first consider appellees' contention that appellants lack standing to assert their as applied claims and that those claims were not ripe. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that appellants do have standing and that the claims are ripe. 16 Standing requires that plaintiffs allege an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (citations and internal punctuation omitted). In applying that test, we assume the validity of appellants' allegation of injury, although having crossed that threshold, we may ultimately determine it to be invalid. With that assumption, we hold that appellants do have standing to assert their as-applied claims. They asked for immediate access to accompany U.S. troops in combat, which they contend is their constitutional right, and that access was not granted. Therefore, appellants ha[ve] suffered an `injury in fact' that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167, 180, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000). They have standing to challenge the Directive as it was applied in this case. 17 In order to test the ripeness and justiciability of the claims, we again assume that they are otherwise valid. Ripeness analysis tests whether a question has sufficiently matured to be amenable to adjudication. The Supreme Court has explained that when considering whether an issue is ripe for judicial review, a court must evaluate both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of refusing a decision. Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 301, 118 S.Ct. 1257, 140 L.Ed.2d 406 (1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, a claim is unripe if it depends on contingent future events. Id. at 300, 118 S.Ct. 1257. 18 Appellants' claim is that credentialed press persons have an immediate right, upon request, to accompany U.S. troops in combat. So understood, the as-applied claims are ripe. Flynt requested that Hustler reporters gain access to combat operations, and that access was not immediately granted. Instead, access of another sort was provided-that of covering the [air] strikes, witness[ing] the humanitarian drops and interview[ing] soldiers. Flynt's claim does not depend on contingent future events. He asked for immediate access, which he contends is his constitutional right, and that access was not granted. On these facts, the question is presented in a concrete factual setting and is fit for judicial review.