Bellocchio v. Garland, 614 F.Supp.3d 11

Plaintiff John Bellocchio, a New Jersey resident and small-business owner, challenges the federal ban on buying/selling human organs (42 U.S.C. § 274e) after researching and expressing interest in selling a kidney to address financial difficulties.
He alleges the NOTA Ban violates his freedom of contract and privacy (Due Process) and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against federal enforcement.
Defendant Merrick Garland (Attorney General) moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6), primarily arguing lack of Article III standing.
The District Court treated the motion under Rule 12(b)(1) as facial and held the complaint’s allegations insufficient to show a concrete intent to sell or a credible threat of prosecution.
Because of the standing dismissal, the Court did not reach venue or merits; it also denied leave to amend as Plaintiff never sought amendment and amendment would be futile.
The case was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the Clerk was ordered to close the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing — injury in fact (concrete intent to violate NOTA)	Bellocchio wants to sell his kidney and was “shocked” to learn sale is illegal, implying present intent to sell.	Complaint lacks facts showing he is "able and ready" or has concrete plans to engage in an organ sale.	No standing: allegations of mere interest or "some day" intent are insufficient.
Pre-enforcement challenge — credible threat of prosecution	The statute’s criminal penalties and mandatory language create an inevitable threat of prosecution if he sells.	Plaintiff alleges no direct threats, past enforcement, or facts showing prosecution is likely.	No credible threat: fears speculative; no allegations of past enforcement or threatened prosecution.
Venue (12(b)(3))	Plaintiff contends substantial events (a call to a medical center in S.D.N.Y.) and hypothetical plans to transact in the District make venue proper; asks for transfer if needed.	Venue improper; dismissal or transfer appropriate.	Not reached due to lack of jurisdiction.
Leave to amend	Implicit: would cure pleading defects by clarifying intent to sell.	Plaintiff never moved to amend after Court’s invitation; amendment would be futile.	Denied: no request made and likely futile.

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (standing requires a concrete and particularized injury)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (elements of standing: injury in fact, causation, redressability)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (future injury and credible threat standards for pre-enforcement challenges)
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (plaintiff need not risk enforcement to challenge a law)
Knife Rts., Inc. v. Vance, 802 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2015) (analysis of imminence and credible threat in pre-enforcement standing)
Carney v. Adams, 141 S. Ct. 493 (2020) (standing requires being "able and ready" to take the challenged action)
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2015) (Article III limits on federal jurisdiction)
Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (1979) (credible threat cannot be imaginary or speculative)
Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974) (declaratory relief as alternative to risking prosecution)