As usual, perhaps I have not made myself clear. And before I go further, I should clarify that I&#x27;ve only taken one law school class, and I am not a lawyer.<p>The issue I&#x27;m referring to is that no one is in a position to challenge this component of the FAA without demonstrating that they personally have sustained harm, meaning their rights as an individual have been violated. In other words, the issue is that there must be a &quot;case or controversy&quot; to test a legal hypothesis.<p>If there were a means of challenging the constitutional validity of a law, or an interpretation of the law, without the burden of proving that one has personally sustained harm, then the public would be able to challenge this component of the FAA in situations other than one where a possibly dangerous person stands a chance of being released. I think few would be prepared to argue his case were it not for its legal significance.<p>Correct me if I&#x27;m mistaken; you seem to be more educated on the subject.