4 ms·

That's kind of a misrepresentation. She said that state law unconstitutionally restricted her actions. If say, Alabama made a law that Black Americans couldn'

That's kind of a misrepresentation. She said that state law unconstitutionally restricted her actions. If say, Alabama made a law that Black Americans couldn't vote, affected citizens wouldn't have to wait to be fined for attempting to vote, they could sue about the unconstitutionality of the law as soon as it was passed.

kolbe 3y ago
Civil rights violations are different. For article III standing in other types of lawsuits, you do need to prove harm. But civil rights violations sort of loom over you all the time, so even if you aren't trying to express the impugned right, it's still harming you is the logic (if my memory serves me right).
- justrealist 3y ago
  It only seems different because you don't agree on the merits.
  - kolbe 3y ago
    No, I'm actually telling you the standard for article III standing. I'm in no way telling you what I believe should be true or just.
    - justrealist 3y ago
      > But civil rights violations sort of loom over you all the time, so even if you aren't trying to express the impugned right This is exactly the situation the designer believed themselves to be in, during the course of normal business.
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  I’m not aware of a general “civil rights” exception to standing—can you cite your source? But there is a 1st amendment exception—because of the “chilling effect” of restricting speech it’s allowed to sue even if a law hasn’t directly affected you. Which seems to be the case for this one.
Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
Mississippi did make a law that prevented black people from voting and the supreme court said that it was ok. Because of course they did. "'We came here to exclude the negro. Nothing short of this will answer,' the president of the convention said at the time." https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/30/us-supreme-court-mississippi-voting-rights-case-black-voters https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/30/us-supreme-court...

kolbe 3y ago

Civil rights violations are different. For article III standing in other types of lawsuits, you do need to prove harm. But civil rights violations sort of loom over you all the time, so even if you aren't trying to express the impugned right, it's still harming you is the logic (if my memory serves me right).

justrealist 3y ago
It only seems different because you don't agree on the merits.
- kolbe 3y ago
  No, I'm actually telling you the standard for article III standing. I'm in no way telling you what I believe should be true or just.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    > But civil rights violations sort of loom over you all the time, so even if you aren't trying to express the impugned right This is exactly the situation the designer believed themselves to be in, during the course of normal business.
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
I’m not aware of a general “civil rights” exception to standing—can you cite your source? But there is a 1st amendment exception—because of the “chilling effect” of restricting speech it’s allowed to sue even if a law hasn’t directly affected you. Which seems to be the case for this one.

Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago

Mississippi did make a law that prevented black people from voting and the supreme court said that it was ok. Because of course they did. "'We came here to exclude the negro. Nothing short of this will answer,' the president of the convention said at the time." https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/30/us-supreme-court-mississippi-voting-rights-case-black-voters https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/30/us-supreme-court...