~ grok continued “Federal courts routinely hear pre-enforcement challenges to government policies when the threatened action is sufficiently concrete, the plaintiff faces imminent harm or current costs, and waiting would cause hardship (common in election and First Amendment contexts). Pure speculation is not enough; a credible threat of unlawful action plus present injury often is. Whether Arlington meets the standard (standing, ripeness, final agency action under the APA) WILL BE DECIDED BY THE COURT Critics note that Mullin’s comments were limited to specific warrants or active threats rather than blanket deployment, and that the statute’s exception is narrow.” @CynicalPublius smelled like Elias so I asked…..