to the agency’s interview policy as well. And if it is the policy that is the cause of Schnitzler’s inability to renounce his citizenship, then a judicial determination that the policy is unconstitutional can redress his injury. Accordingly, standing is not a barrier to Schnitzler’s ability to pursue his constitutional claims. IV For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the dismissal of Schnitzler’s complaint and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. So ordered. 1 . But see Turner v. Beers, No. 13-504, 5 F.Supp.3d 115, 119, 2013 WL 6627983, at *3 (D.D.C. Dec. 17, 2013) (noting that ‘‘[t]he Government does not contest that we are ‘in a state of war,' which is a prerequisite for [§ 1481(a)(6)] to be operative”); Kaufman v. Holder, 686 F.Supp.2d 40, 43-44 (D.D.C.2010) (<HOLDING>). 2 . See also App. 17 (stating that "[t]he
holding that six employees bringing suit under title vii were not in privity with the united states which had brought a previous suit against the same employer because the employees sought a type of relief which the united states had not sought holding that the united states was at war for purposes of  1481a6 in 2008 when another prisoner sought acknowledgment of his renunciation holding that prosecution of defendant in the united states for hostage taking based on acts committed outside the united states did not violate due process holding that sovereign immunity does not bar extinguishment of united states junior lien in proceeding in which united states was not a party holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states