he held a press conference announcing his candidacy, Nix Decl. ¶ 7; see also Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 907 (D.C.Cir.1987) (noting that a plaintiff “can freely augment his pleadings with affidavits,” such as the affidavit Nix filed discussing, among other things, his press conference, to establish the plaintiffs standing). The district court nonetheless appe . FEC, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010). In our view, Nix’s allegation that he intended to run in the November 2011 election and his public announcement at the press conference sufficiently establish the “substantial probability” of imminent injury required for Article III standing. Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, 642 F.3d 192, 201 (D.C.Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. Shays, 414 F.3d at 92 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, as Nix argues, a contrary holding
holding that senator mcconnell lacked standing to challenge a provision of the bipartisan campaign reform act of 2002 bcra that at earliest would have affected him in his 2008 reelection campaign holding that passengers of a vehicle which they did not own had standing to challenge the validity of a traffic stop holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search recognizing taxpayer standing to assert a constitutional challenge to the manner of a judicial election given the special circumstances involved holding that incumbent congressmen subject to twoyear election cycles had standing to challenge the fecs implementation of certain provisions of bcra