Plaintiff appealed the district court's decision to dismiss his case against the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development Program for lack of standing.

The district court found that Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for standing. The court determined that Plaintiff did not show that the program’s eligibility rules directly caused his rejection. Specifically, he needed to demonstrate that he had an economic disadvantage, which was also a requirement for qualifying, but he failed to do so. Court also ruled that Plaintiff did not show any harm (injury) from the denial, such as business losses.

Plaintiff appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the district court was wrong in ruling that he lacked standing. Specifically, Plaintiff argued that he did not need to show loss of specific business or contracts to prove harm from the eligibility criteria. He also maintained that he was not required to demonstrate an economic disadvantage, and that, even if he were, he had sufficiently done so at this stage in the case.

On January 3, 2025, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of SBA, agreeing that the case was properly dismissed due to a lack of standing. the court determined that while Plaintiff did not need to show business losses resulting from his rejection, he did need to prove that the alleged discriminatory policy was the primary reason for his non-admission. Since he could not establish that he met the economic disadvantage requirements, he failed to demonstrate harm. Plaintiff's request for the case to be heard by the full panel of judges in the circuit (en banc) was also denied.