Consider this passage from Chemerinsky's hornbook (p. 62): "The Supreme Court has said that the core of Article III's requirement for cases and controversies is found in the rule that standing is limited to those who allege that they personally have suffered or imminently will suffer an injury. The Court explained: 'The plaintiff must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the challenged official conduct and the injury or threat of injury must be both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.'"
In 303 Creative, here is how the Court explained the standing issue in that case:
For its part, the Tenth Circuit held that Ms. Smith had standing to sue. In that court’s judgment, she had established a credible threat that, if she follows through on her plans to offer wedding website services, Colorado will invoke CADA to force her to create speech she does not believe or endorse....The court pointed to the fact that “Colorado has a history of past enforcement against nearly identical conduct—i.e., Masterpiece Cakeshop”; that anyone in the State may file a complaint against Ms. Smith and initiate “a potentially burdensome administrative hearing” process; and that “Colorado [has] decline[d] to disavow future enforcement” proceedings against her....Before us, no party challenges these conclusions.
These pre-enforcement cases are ubiquitous--before Roe v Wade was overruled many abortion rights lawsuits were brought to enjoin the law's future--imminent--enforcement against abortion access.
No comments:
Post a Comment