That is true, but it's because that point in time would not occur yet. The question at this point in time is about standing, which is necessary for this plainti

That is true, but it's because that point in time would not occur yet. The question at this point in time is about standing, which is necessary for this plaintiff to be able to pursue the case. Basically, is this actually the right person to be suing over this (it's pretty complex, and i'm removing a tremendous amount of nuance). Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving standing. However, in most motions about standing and appeals of those motions, all facts will be assumed to be true. This is because most standing dismissal is for "failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted" (FRCP rule 12(b)(6)) . Which means, basically,"even if all the facts are true, you still have no case". So they do the obvious thing, and for the purposes of that motion (and appeals of it, like here), they assume all the facts are true :)