Article III standing; Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins; Particularized injury; Lance v. Coffman; A concrete injury; Buchholz v. Meyer Njus Tanick, PA; Invasion of a legally protected interest; Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t; Takings Clause violation; Coalition for Gov’t Procurement v. Federal Prison Indus., Inc.; Alamo Land & Cattle Co. v. Arizona; Effect of the fact a claim may fail on the merits; Trump v. Hawaii; “Colorable” or “arguable” claim; Reoforce, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cir.); Booker-El v. Superintendent, IN State Prison (7th Cir.)

The court held that plaintiff-CHKRS had standing to bring its Takings Clause claim against defendant-City of Dublin where it asserted a nonfrivolous argument that it had a legally protectable property interest to support the claim. CHKRS alleged that City violated the Takings Clause when it failed to pay compensation after tearing out its driveway and replacing it with a defective one. The district court ruled that CHKRS lacked standing because the state court had previously ruled that it lacked a protectable property interest. The court found that the district court erred by confusing the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause’s substantive requirements with Article III’s jurisdictional requirements, and held that “[a]s long as a plaintiff has asserted a colorable legal claim (and has met standing’s other elements), the plaintiff has satisfied Article III and the court may resolve the claim on its merits.” CHKRS alleged that the City trespassed onto its property, destroyed the driveway, and later replaced it with a defective driveway. “CHKRS had a lease interest in the property at the time and now owns it outright.” The court concluded that its claims alleged a “particular” and “concrete” injury, and that CHKRS plausibly alleged the invasion of a legally protected interest. The district court erred by conflating the merits of CHKRS’s takings claim with its standing to bring that claim. “[J[ust because a plaintiff’s claim might fail on the merits does not deprive the plaintiff of standing to assert it.” But CHKRS abandoned its due-process claims by failing to respond to the City’s arguments in its motion for judgment on the pleadings. Thus, the court reversed the grant of judgment on the pleadings to the City as to the takings claim, affirmed it as to the due-process claims, and remanded.