4 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt only seems different because you don't agree on the merits.
- kolbe 3y agoNo, 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 agoI’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.