Changes

* A likelihood that the court can and will grant relief of the injury.

* A likelihood that the court can and will grant relief of the injury.

Messrs. Purpura and Laster assert that they derive their standing from the simple fact that anything unconstitutional creates an "injury in fact" that all of the people suffer. In addition, many of their assertions create "a very significant probability of future harm." The electronic medical record (searchable without warrant), the "individual mandate" (as a capitation tax), and the price-fixing and barrier-to-entry aspects of the Act are the best examples.

Messrs. Purpura and Laster assert that they derive their standing from the simple fact that anything unconstitutional creates an "injury in fact" that all of the people suffer. The District Court rejected the plaintiff's argument, saying that "A plaintiff will fail to [establish a particularized injury-in-fact] if the plaintiff merely raises a 'generally available grievance about government — claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large.'" (slip op., ¶11 (quoting ''Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife'', 504 U.S. 555, 573–74 (1992)))

== Sequence of Events Thus Far ==

== Sequence of Events Thus Far ==