Opinion ID: 799252
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: tca

Text: TCA argues that it has standing to pursue a First Amendment claim because the labeling of its website as unreliable, and the inclusion of it on the same list as websites denying the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis in World War II, stigmatized TCA. TCA relies on Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 107 S.Ct. 1862, 95 L.Ed.2d 415 (1987), in which a California attorney serving as a state senator wished to show Canadian films purporting to address the effects of nuclear war and acid rain. Because the films met the definition of political propaganda under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, however, the state senator feared damage to his public reputation as a disseminator of foreign political propaganda. Id. at 467, 107 S.Ct. 1862. He filed suit on First Amendment grounds to enjoin the application of the Act. The Court acknowledged that the Act did not have a direct effect on the exercise of his First Amendment rights because it did not prevent him from obtaining or exhibiting the films. Id. at 473, 107 S.Ct. 1862. Nevertheless, the Court found that he alleged a cognizable injury based on his allegation that his personal, political, and professional reputation would suffer and his ability to obtain re-election and to practice his profession would be impaired. Id. Several courts have found that, under Meese, a non-profit organization that alleges an injury to reputation through stigmatizing government speech has Article III standing to bring a constitutional claim: The fact that an injury to the reputation of an organization such as SMHA can serve as a basis for standing has been recognized at least since Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 71 S.Ct. 624, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) (plurality opinion). In that case, the Supreme Court stated that the effect of designating the complaining organizations as Communist was to cripple the functioning and damage the reputation of those organizations in their respective communities and in the nation. Id. at 139, 71 S.Ct. [624] (principal opinion) (Burton, J.); see id. at 140-41, 71 S.Ct. 624. S. Mut. Help Ass'n, Inc. v. Califano, 574 F.2d 518, 524 (D.C.Cir.1977); see also Riggs v. City of Albuquerque, 916 F.2d 582, 583-85 (10th Cir.1990) (holding that plaintiff politically active organizations who, it was alleged, have often taken controversial and unpopular positions pled a cognizable injury for standing purposes where they allege[d] harm to their personal, political, and professional reputations in the community). We agree that TCA similarly has pled a cognizable injury here. As a result, TCA has standing to pursue its First Amendment claim.