Changes

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)))

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 ==

=== Initial filing ===

=== Initial filing ===

On 20 September 2010, Purpura and Laster served their complaint electronically<ref name=complaint/> on Secretaries [[Kathleen Sebelius]], [[Timothy Geithner]], and [[Hilda Solis]]. Of historical importance only, they did not serve their complaint upon the [[United States Attorney]] in New Jersey, as Rule 4 of the [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]] requires. (However, the time for the defendants to move the dismissal of the case on the basis of "insufficient service of process" has long passed, and by their subsequent correspondence, including the filing of motions of other kinds in this case, they have waived that defense.<ref name=suffserv>{{cite web|last=Hurlbut|first=Terry|authorlink=User:TerryH|url=http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-conservative-in-newark/whether-the-nj-usa-was-properly-served|title=Whether the NJ USA was properly served|publisher=Essex County Conservative Examiner|date=2011-01-09|accessmonthday=January 9|accessyear=2011}}</ref>)

On 20 September 2010, Purpura and Laster served their complaint electronically<ref name=complaint/> on Secretaries [[Kathleen Sebelius]], [[Timothy Geithner]], and [[Hilda Solis]]. Of historical importance only, they did not serve their complaint upon the [[United States Attorney]] in New Jersey, as Rule 4 of the [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]] requires. (However, the time for the defendants to move the dismissal of the case on the basis of "insufficient service of process" has long passed, and by their subsequent correspondence, including the filing of motions of other kinds in this case, they have waived that defense.<ref name=suffserv>{{cite web|last=Hurlbut|first=Terry|authorlink=User:TerryH|url=http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-conservative-in-newark/whether-the-nj-usa-was-properly-served|title=Whether the NJ USA was properly served|publisher=Essex County Conservative Examiner|date=2011-01-09|accessmonthday=January 9|accessyear=2011}}</ref>)