Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Defendants oppose summary judgment, arguing that material issues of fact remain to be decided. [Record No. 75, p. 7] A. Standing In its response to the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, the Cabinet again argues that the Plaintiffs lacks standing to sue because they never completed the application process and thus were never subject to protests. [Record No. 75, p. 10] It also contends that the case is not ripe for review because Wildcat may be denied a Certificate even if the statutes in question are invalidated. These arguments are largely duplicative of the arguments previously made and rejected. [See Record No. 38; see also Chicago v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 357 U.S. 77, 89, 78 S.Ct. 1063, 2 L.Ed.2d 1174 (1958) (<HOLDING>).] Although standing may be raised at any time,
holding that where a statute provides a procedure for judicial review of a bid protest a party may not circumvent the established procedures and was obligated either to pursue its right to judicial review or to file its declaratory judgment action in compliance with the procedures for administrative appeal set out in the statute holding that a plaintiff was not obligated to apply for a certificate of convenience and necessity and submit to the administrative procedures incident thereto before bringing an action holding that determination of public convenience and necessity by the public service commission was an issue of fact which warranted substantial judicial deference to the factfinding processes of the administrative agency recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing a  1983 action holding the separate classification of one purported administrative convenience claim can never be reasonable and necessary for administrative convenience