4 ms·
IANAL, but do the plaintiffs actually have standing to sue given that they have not been charged under the act? The problems seem to stem from uncertainty and a
by dooglius 8y ago
IANAL, but do the plaintiffs actually have standing to sue given that they have not been charged under the act? The problems seem to stem from uncertainty and ambiguity in how people think the law may be enforced, not based on any actual enforcement.
- dmitrygr 8y agoUnfortunately the point you bring up is likely valid. It will probably get tossed due to lack of standing.
- lsiebert 8y agoThat's one of the reasons for the broad array of plaintiffs. Maybe some of them don't have standing, but as long as one of them does, they can continue.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- otterley 8y agoGood question. (I am a lawyer but this is not legal advice.) As recently as 2014, the Supreme Court held that “a plaintiff satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement where he alleges ‘an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.’” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. __ (citing Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U. S. 289, 298 (1979)). This is but the latest in a consistent thread of case law holding that an actual criminal indictment need not be made against a plaintiff for them to have standing. As long as there’s a credible threat of enforcement and they can show intent to commit the proscribed act, that’s sufficient to satisfy the standing requirement.
- comex 8y agoFor the First Amendment in particular there's also a concept of a "chilling effect" on speech, which can make it a bit easier to establish standing.