QUESTION: To show "injury in fact" for the future, even though the past events may not in itself be sufficient, I would think they can be useful in building the case. Specifically, Angela Patterson's activities, although from the past, have been halted in the present directly due to the mercury discharge in the river. For the same reason, will be halted in the future too, causing the injury. This case is more assertive than Lujan where the intent for visiting those countries is very uncertain. In contrast, Angela's repeated visits in the past to the area and her staying within 2 miles from the facility seem more concrete to support an "imminent injury" to her future plans. Now, such an injury would have been even more imminent had she made a down payment on the house she wanted to buy near the river. But, that seems like an overdue burden on the plaintiff to prove "injury in fact" for the future. Quanitatively, on a scale of 0-100, the injury may not be 100, but seems definitely more than 60. Would like to hear your comments.
ANSWER: I basically agree with everything you say. There is no doubt that past activities enhance the credibility of future plans. That Ms. Patterson used to use the river, and has stopped doing so because of the pollution, is a strong indication that, once the pollution is remedied, she will use the river again. So yes, it is helpful, relevant, important. I would just emphasize, though, that to have standing to seek an injunction, she must be claiming that she would use the river in the future. If all her past activities were identical, but she had since moved to Sri Lanka and had no plans to come back to South Carolina, she would lack standing to seek forward-looking relief.