DOJ-OGR-00000318.jpg

Case 9:08 a6 b 236K ANH IB deiRentBegumephfered driled SH DééRet d7aas/adiel Ibage 14 of 20 Jurisdiction to hear the case.”)); Reahard v. Lee County, 30 F.3d 1412, 1415 (11th Cir. 1994) (“The question of ripeness ‘goes to whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.’’’) (quoting Greenbriar, 881 F.2d at 1573); see also Jacksonville Property Rights Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 635 F.3d 1266, 1276 (11th Cir. 2011) (concluding that when plaintiffs ask a court “to issue a declaration on an issue that might never impact their substantive rights,” they are “asking th[e] court either to issue an impermissible advisory opinion, or to decide a case that is not yet ripe for decision’), reh’g & reh’g en banc denied, Case No. 09-15629, _ Fed. App’x —_ (11th Cir. Jun. 29, 2011) (Table). Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the United States respectfully requests that this Court enter an order dismissing the Petitioners’ claims and these proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 13 DOJ-OGR-00000318