Opinion ID: 1345037
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Does IAC Have Standing to Challenge the Violations Provision?

Text: Finally, IAC argues that the Violations Provision is facially unconstitutional because it provides for strict liability in violation of the First Amendment. IAC does not have standing to challenge this provision. A plaintiff has Article III standing to bring suit if (1) it has suffered an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000). IAC argues that it has a significant First Amendment interest in communicating its message in such a way as to stir bystanders to join spontaneously. IAC submits that the strict liability regime injures IAC because it will chill some from joining its marches, for fear of prosecution, even when those marches are permitted. IAC failed to provide sufficient evidence that it has or will suffer an injury-in-fact. The chill on those that may spontaneously join IAC's marches is purely conjectural. See Latino Officers Ass'n v. Safir, 170 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 1999) (Allegations of a subjective chill [of First Amendment rights] are not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Accordingly, IAC does not have standing to pursue this claim.