1. Does a plaintiff have standing when they allege personal, concrete injuries stemming from government policies, even when such policies cause widely shared harms to the public?

2. Does the political question doctrine preclude judicial review when a plaintiff challenges an executive policy as inconsistent with statutory mandates rather than as a discretionary matter of policy?

3. Can nominal damages, as outlined in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, suffice to establish standing when a plaintiff alleges a constitutional or statutory injury with primarily psychological and emotional consequences?

4. Are indigent, pro se litigants entitled to a reasoned explanation in appeal dismissals to ensure equal access to justice, even when the court determines a case lacks arguable merit?

Does a plaintiff have standing when they allege personal, concrete injuries stemming from government policies, even when such policies cause widely shared harms to the public?