[MiltonFriedman]

I will try and explain standing to sue, injury, or any of other terms which you are asking about.

If a federal law is passed that says conduct X is illegal, then a US person covered by that law who engages in conduct X before the law is passed likely has standing to sue on a claim that the federal law prohibiting conduct X in states where it is illegal under State law violates his First Amendment rights.

This is why the Plaintiffs in the ACLU v. Gonzales, who engage in conduct X in states where it is legal to so act have standing to sue to block a Federal law which rests on conduct X being illegal in other States.

This US person may not win, but he presents a justicable (sp ?) controversy to the Court and can point to an injury in fact.

You are dead wrong that no one was injured if Party or Doyles Room left because of the Act becoming law. Party shareholders were royally screwed, including those shareholders in the US. (Why Party did not retreat offshore and file an action for Declaratory Relief is an interesting question in itself.)

How many former Party or Doyle affiliates from the US lost income derived from "legal" States players ? How many players could not access Party anymore. (For the record, I would be delighted for hypothetical Poker Plaintiffs to LOSE the iMEGA case on a ruling that UIGEA does not apply to poker.)

I think there are plenty of US poker players/affiliates with an injury in fact and with standing to sue. The issue would not be even close.

Liklihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury present different issues for getting injunctive relief of course, but a Plaintiff needs to survive a standing challenge, on a motion to dismiss, to even get to them.