that he or she has standing under Article III of the Constitution. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Belter Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). “Standing to sue requires an individual to demonstrate (1) actual or threatened injury which is (2) fairly traceable to the challenged action and (3) a substantial likelihood the relief requested will redress or prevent the plaintiffs injury.” ACLU v. Ashbrook, 375 F.3d 484, 489 (6th Cir.2004). See also Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103, 118 S.Ct. 1003. Moreover, the ACLU, as a “voluntary membership organization has standing to sue on behalf of its members when (a) its members otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neith ) (<HOLDING>). In this case, Plaintiff demonstrates injury
holding that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of monument inscribed with the ten commandments placed on government land by private organization even though government did not maintain the structure holding that the sale of 440 square feet of a city park containing a ten commandments monument to a private organization was valid because there were no unusual circumstances 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 holding that the disclosure of the plaintiffs dmv information to the capitol police as described in the complaint was a permissible use under the dppa holding that plaintiffs had standing to challenge a ten commandments display at the state capitol as plaintiffs frequently travel to the state capitol to engage in political advocacy for a variety of organizations and that they will endure direct and unwelcome contact with the ten commandments monument