Cooper v Aaron

3. After the Supreme Court's holding in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), that a state may not deprive same-sex couples of the right to marry under the Fourteenth Amendment, a state enacted a statute providing a two-year moratorium on all marriages in an attempt to evade the decision. The statute provided that the state would oppose in every manner the "unconstitutional same-sex marriage decision of the United States Supreme Court." A same-sex couple in the state who desired the rights and liberties of marriage sought injunctive relief against the governor that would require the state to abide by Obergefell. In response, the governor argued that the state did not have to obey Obergefell because it was wrong, which authorized the state to nullify the holding through other state laws.

How should the federal court rule?

Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife

4. Since a dictator rose to power in a foreign country over 40 years ago, that country's nationals have consistently sought to migrate to the United States. The nationals who cannot meet the stringent requirements to enter the United States as "refugees" occasionally try to enter the United States by the extra-legal means of sailing private boats to the southeastern coast of the United States. Because of the trip's hazards, as well as the foreign government's active discouragement, such attempts are rare enough that the United States allows the lucky survivors to legally immigrate, even if they do not qualify for refugee status.

Recently, the foreign government announced that it would no longer forcibly prevent emigration. The announcement prompted a massive flow of nationals toward the United States. Later that year, Congress enacted a statute, which changed United States policy toward these nationals. In addition to those already legally entitled to enter under current law, the United States would allow 20,000 nationals to legally enter the United States each year. Under the statute, the 20,000 eligible immigrants are selected by an annual lottery from those nationals who apply to immigrate under the program.

The statute further alters prior practice by requiring repatriation of any national who reaches the United States by boat. The statute also provides, however, that if any section is held unconstitutional, the statute as a whole will be void, and United States immigration. law will revert to the rules and practices in effect prior to the statute.

A lawsuit challenging the statute's lottery program has been filed against the United States in federal district court. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the lottery violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiff is a foreign national who participated in the first lottery held under the statute. The plaintiff was not selected for entry into the United States and does not qualify as a refugee under United States law. He claims, however, that under the pre-statute immigration laws, he would have attempted to enter the United States by undertaking the extremely hazardous journey of sailing a private boat from the foreign country to the United States.

Does the plaintiff have standing? Explain.