Do plaintiffs properly establish standing to bring claims for prospective relief?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Plaintiffs across the United States turn to the courts to challenge treatment they endure while traveling and the lack of due process available for them to do so otherwise. The harms they suffer include hours-long detentions, consistent “random” selection for invasive searches and, as here, searches of electronics and public removal from gate areas in handcuffs, followed by detention in airport cells. These individuals often receive no explanation for this treatment. They come to courts nationwide seeking relief from the same fear: that it will happen to them again. Yet the Circuits disagree on the test for standing in this context. Question No. 1 presented: Do plaintiffs properly establish standing to bring claims for prospective relief when they plead past harm, a history of prior travel patterns, and an articulated desire to travel again based on continuing connections and needs, including religious pilgrimages, or must their showing of “concrete plans” identify specific dates of “when the ... travel will be” before they gain access inside the courthouse doors? Question No. 2 presented: Does the analysis above differ when for any length of time plaintiffs, through no fault of their own, cannot make specific travel arrangements in the future, as occurred during the pandemic when the U.S. and other governments heavily restricted flying, or do those uncontrollable circumstances preclude standing even if plaintiffs could otherwise meet their burdens?