1. Lack of Standing: One of the primary challenges would be establishing legal standing to bring the lawsuit. To have standing, plaintiffs must demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury directly caused by the defendant’s actions that can be redressed by the court. In this case, pro-Taiwan autonomy activists or organizations would need to show how the acceptance of ROC passports specifically harms them. Courts generally require a direct and tangible injury, not just a generalized grievance shared by the public. The connection between the activists’ claims and the alleged harm caused by the acceptance of ROC passports by U.S. authorities would likely be viewed as too indirect and speculative to satisfy standing requirements.

2. Political Question Doctrine: The case would also likely encounter dismissal under the political question doctrine, which prevents courts from deciding issues that are constitutionally committed to the executive or legislative branches. The recognition of foreign governments and the legitimacy of passports are inherently diplomatic matters, squarely within the domain of the executive branch. Courts typically refrain from adjudicating cases that could interfere with U.S. foreign policy, especially when it involves sensitive issues such as Taiwan’s ambiguous international status. The judiciary's intervention in matters of diplomatic recognition or passport validity would likely be seen as an overreach into executive authority.

3. Failure to State a Claim: Another probable obstacle would be the court’s finding that the complaint fails to state a legally cognizable claim. The argument hinges on assertions that ROC passports are counterfeit or fraudulent under U.S. law, particularly under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (fraud in connection with identification documents). However, the acceptance of ROC passports by U.S. agencies, such as the State Department and Customs and Border Protection, is an established practice rooted in policy decisions rather than a determination of legal fraud or counterfeiting. The claim that ROC passports are inherently deceptive or fraudulent would likely be seen as a misapplication of laws designed to combat criminal activities related to forged or counterfeit documents, not those accepted as a matter of policy.

4. Public Interest Considerations: While this case’s argument emphasizes the public interest in preventing deception, courts would want to balance this with other public interest factors, such as the continuity of international travel and U.S.-Taiwan relations. U.S. policy allows the use of ROC passports for practical reasons despite the non-recognition of the ROC as a sovereign state. An injunction against their use could disrupt established travel practices and diplomatic understandings, which courts are generally reluctant to disturb without a compelling legal basis.

5. In conclusion, while the case raises provocative issues about Taiwan’s legal status and the validity of ROC passports, it would face substantial procedural and substantive hurdles, including lack of standing, the political question doctrine, and the difficulty of articulating a legally viable claim. Courts would likely defer to existing executive branch determinations regarding passport validity and U.S. foreign policy, making success in this hypothetical litigation scenario highly improbable.

6. In light of the legal challenges associated with pursuing this kind of complaint in the U.S. courts, the most viable path for the Taiwanese people to address the issues surrounding ROC passports and broader human rights concerns lies in engaging with the political branches of the U.S. government—namely, the Executive Branch and Congress. The Executive Branch has the authority to shape U.S. foreign policy, including decisions about the recognition of passports, while Congress has the power to enact laws that could address these concerns. However, coordinating efforts with these branches presents its own challenges, particularly given the lack of direct avenues for public engagement with key stakeholders, such as the Taiwan Caucus in the Senate and the Taiwan Caucus in the House of Representatives, which have not publicly announced contact addresses for email, letters, or other forms of communication.

7. For Taiwanese individuals residing in the United States who are invested in advancing Taiwan human rights issues, a practical step would be to reach out to their respective Senators and Congresspersons through their Washington, D.C. offices. Constituents can inquire about possible legislative actions or policy initiatives that address the legal status of Taiwan, the recognition of ROC passports, and related human rights matters. By actively engaging with their elected representatives, Taiwanese Americans and their supporters can explore potential avenues for raising awareness and pushing for policy changes that reflect their concerns. This approach underscores the importance of working within the framework of the political branches to advocate for Taiwan’s human rights and legal status on an international stage, leveraging political advocacy as a means to influence U.S. policy in ways that the courts cannot.