1. Facts The State of X has a policy that allows state officials to confiscate property that they "reasonably believe" to have been purchased from funds connected to illegal drug sales. The Protect our Rights Association has data showing that this provision is used much more frequently in certain areas of the state where the residents are predominantly African American or Hispanic/Latino. The purpose of the Association is to protect the constitutional rights of citizens in State X. It has members in the areas where property has been taken by police officers, and at least one member had some of their property taken under this policy. The Association held some protests about the policy, and publicly threatened to sue the State. In response, the State announced that it will temporarily stop implementing the policy. The Association contacts your office about suing the State in federal court for violations of the constitutional rights of its members. It does not believe that the State will actually stop implementing the policy. They want to sue for monetary damages and injunctive relief that requires the State to stop implementing the policy in a discriminatory fashion. Assignment Your supervisor asks you to draft a memorandum that explains whether the Association's potential claims will meet the relevant justiciability requirements necessary to sue the State, and to obtain the damages and equitable relief they seek. She tells you not to worry about the actual potential claims that could be brought; just address the justiciability issues based on the facts and remedies sought by the Association. If you conclude that the facts are insufficient to meet a justiciability requirement, the supervisor asks that you explain what additional factual information is needed in order to meet it, so that she can follow up and get more information from the Association. She tells you to look up and use the City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) and O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) cases in the memorandum, as she knows that they will be relevant to your analysis, and then use whatever other United States Supreme Court cases that you believe are relevant to the issues. 

Is it justifiable? Are there any other relevant cases?