Rush v. Trump, Civil Action No. 2025-1574

Stephen L. Rush, acting pro se, filed a lawsuit seeking to remove Donald J. Trump from the presidency and to install himself as President.
Rush also requested the Court order Congress to expel those he claims were co-conspirators and to rectify alleged illegal acts.
Plaintiff claimed he was personally injured due to fears for his and his son's safety, familial connection to the Founding Fathers, purported harm from Trump's social media activity, and his religious convictions.
The Court evaluated whether Rush had Article III standing, a required element to proceed in federal court.
The plaintiff’s allegations were found to be speculative, hypothetical, and conclusory, rather than concrete or particularized.
The Court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction but granted Rush’s motion to amend his complaint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing	Rush claimed personal harm due to Trump’s actions and personal status.	(Not stated, as action dismissed pre-answer)	Rush lacked standing; no actionable injury.
Injury-in-fact requirement	Alleged fear for safety and specific harms tied to Trump’s conduct.	(Not stated)	Allegations were too speculative.
Court's subject-matter jurisdiction	Claimed involvement justified federal court jurisdiction.	(Not stated)	No jurisdiction due to lack of standing.
Request for extraordinary relief	Asked to be installed as President, and for broad Congressional action.	(Not stated)	Relief not considered due to dismissal.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires a concrete and particularized injury, not just generalized grievances)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleadings must contain sufficient factual matter, not just conclusory statements)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (three-part test for standing: injury in fact, causation, redressability)