Summary
The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of Article III standing in a pre-enforcement challenge under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Free Exercise Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiff, an Orthodox Jewish founder who intended to use cannabis for religious ecstatic states, failed to allege a credible threat of prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act because he did not show past enforcement, specific threats, or particularized circumstances beyond a general intent to violate the law. The court held that the mere existence of a criminal statute and general enforcement policies does not confer standing without a sufficiently imminent injury.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Adam alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate a credible threat of prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act to establish Article III standing for a pre-enforcement challenge.
Holdings
- To establish pre-enforcement standing, a plaintiff must allege a concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent injury. For an injury based on a threat of prosecution, the plaintiff must demonstrate a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute's operation or enforcement, which requires plausible allegations that the plaintiff intends to engage in conduct proscribed by the statute and that there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder. A credible threat is not established by imaginary or speculative fears; it depends on the particular circumstances.
Key quotations
“Standing under Article III of the Constitution requires that an injury be concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling.” (2)
“A sufficiently imminent injury can be established by plausible allegations that a plaintiff intends to engage in conduct proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.” (3)
“The identification of a credible threat sufficient to satisfy the imminence requirement of injury in fact necessarily depends on the particular circumstances at issue.” (3)
“Because Adam has failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate a credible threat of prosecution under the CSA, the threat of enforcement against him is insufficiently imminent to confer Article III standing.” (5)
Factual background
Ben Adam, the founder of an Orthodox Jewish organization, believes that the psychoactive properties of cannabis help induce a pre-prophetic ecstatic state that can connect an individual to God. He claims a right to use cannabis for religious purposes and seeks to prevent enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act against him. He has never been arrested or charged with any marijuana-related crimes. His organization has only one member—himself. He intends to possess marijuana for personal religious use. The district court dismissed his amended complaint for lack of standing.
Procedural history
The district court dismissed Adam's amended complaint, ruling that he did not have standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge for declaratory and injunctive relief. Adam appealed.