license. Get Outdoors II, LLC, 506 F.3d at 895. The converse of this statement, however, is that a party who has been granted a permit has not suffered any injury. See IDK, Inc. v. Clark Cnty., 836 F.2d 1185, 1197 (9th Cir.1988) (“We note that the county granted these plaintiffs licenses and therefore they may lack standing to challenge the licensing requirements as it applies to them. In any event, the fact that they have licenses militates against facial invalidation of the regulation.”); see also CAMP Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 451 F.3d 1257, 1276 (11th Cir.2006) (recognizing that organization lacked standing to challenge provision where it “failed to present evidence that it has, or imminently will be denied a permit”); cf. Get Outdoors II, LLC, 506 F.3d at 894-95 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs were granted Expression Permits
holding that plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the permit process where it could not show that it would ever be genuinely threatened by an unconstitutional prior restraint in this case holding that a plaintiff lacked standing to challenge an ordinance imposing higher permit fees on commercial events as a prior restraint because the city had not yet characterized the plaintiffs events as commercial holding that a regulation was not a prior restraint because it did not authorize suppression of speech in advance of its expression holding that it is not holding that unlawful restraint could not even be an included offense