In the case of City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1982), Adolph Lyons sued the city after being subjected to a chokehold by police during a traffic stop, despite not resisting arrest or posing any threat. He sought damages and an injunction against the LAPD's use of chokeholds except in situations where deadly force was necessary. The District Court initially granted this but it was reversed by the Court of Appeals. When brought before the Supreme Court, they ruled 5-4 that Lyons lacked standing to seek an injunction as he couldn't prove he would be subject to a chokehold again in future - thus there wasn't sufficient controversy for judicial resolution. While acknowledging that such practices might pose significant risks if misused, without proof of real and immediate threat to him personally, his claim was speculative or hypothetical rather than concrete and particularized harm required for Article III standing.

In the dissenting opinion for City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that Adolph Lyons had a right to challenge the chokehold policy of the LAPD because it posed an ongoing threat to his personal safety and violated his constitutional rights. He contended that past injury was not necessary to establish standing in this case as there was reasonable expectation of future harm due to the indiscriminate use of chokeholds by police officers. The majority's requirement for Lyons to prove he would be choked again in order for him have standing set an impossible standard, according to Marshall. Furthermore, he criticized their narrow interpretation of "case or controversy" which effectively barred victims from seeking preventive relief against harmful government policies unless they could guarantee future victimization under those same policies - something practically impossible and ethically problematic.