that placed Wolfe on the vexatious litigant list and imposed a prefiling order against him. In response, Wolfe states that he referred to these' prior events in his complaint in order to demonstrate his standing to pursue his constitutional challenge. For Wolfe to have standing to challenge the Vexatious Litigant Statute, he must show that he is sufficiently likely to be injured by the operation of the statute that his dispute is ripe. One way — often the best way — for a plaintiff to establish standing in such a case is to demonstrate that he has previously engaged in the sort of activity in which -he now claims' he will engage again if not prohibited by the statute he seeks to challenge. See United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 89-92, 67 S.Ct. 556, 91 L.Ed. 754 (1947) (<HOLDING>). One can also establish standing to sue by
holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue holding that persecution was on account of political opinion because petitioners prosecutorial investigation into acts of political corruption was by its very nature political holding attorney lacked standing to challenge amount of attorney fees awarded plaintiffs not parties to the appeal holding that plaintiffs lacked standing because the case was not ripe for adjudication holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the hatch act because the nature of the political activities they intended to engage in was a matter of speculation