We skipped a discussion of ripeness in class, mainly because it has been largely folded into standing--the concern for an imminent injury as part of standing in pre-enforcement actions has left ripeness without much to do. Some have suggested that ripeness is prudential while standing is Article III; others have suggested that ripeness applies to private actions while standing applies to public-law actions (compare SBA with Medimmune).
But see this Sixth Circuit case, holding that a property owner's claims to the city's refusal to grant him a permit were not ripe because he withdrew the permit request. The court seems to looks to ripeness because the case involves property/zoning. But reading the facts and the defects in the plaintiff's case, it is easy to see how this could be recast as standing.
