Whether Article III standing to challenge a licensing restriction requires prior submission to the challenged restriction

This petition concerns Article III standing to argue that a n occupational licensing restriction is facially unconstitutional . At issue here is Nevada’s licensing regime for commercial real estate brokering . But t he rules govern standing to challenge any licensing regime at both the state and federal levels . Parties facing a facially unconstitutional licensing restriction must choose: Submit or stand your ground . The circuits are split 3-5. Three circuits make the regulated party submit —i.e., comply (or try) with the licensing restriction before challeng ing it as facially unconstitutional. Five circuits let the regulated party stand their groun d—i.e., defy the licensing restriction, get penalized , and assert its facial unconstitutionality as a defense to the penalty . Petitioners stood their ground and got punished but were denied standing . The question presented is: Whether Article III standing to challenge a licensing restriction as facially unconstitutional requires th at the challenger first submit to the challenged restriction .