Opinion ID: 172215
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Individual Plaintiffs' Standing

Text: In contrast to UARC, the individual plaintiffs have standing to seek an injunction. Each of them has submitted affidavits demonstrating that they would like to be able to protest in the future and that they fear the defendants will not allow those protests. For example, Mr. Tucker averred that: My right (and the right of other activists) to protest, to assemble and to engage in free speech were, are and will be greatly harmed and circumscribed by ordinances (like South Jordan City § 5.92.040 and § 12.12.020, and Salt Lake County §§ 14.56.010 et seq.) which require advance notice of or permits for all demonstrations regardless of size and advance planning. . . . I want to be able to participate in small spontaneous demonstrations in South Jordan City and at the Salt Lake County Equestrian Park and Event Center without securing a permit and without having to provide advance notice to the City or the County. . . . . . . . I want court protection so that I can spontaneously participate in demonstrations on Salt Lake County property and in South Jordan, Utah without interference from the police and without securing a permit or giving advance notice. . . . . I am afraid that unless there is a court order the County employees will act to force me off the grounds of the Equestrian Park as occurred on February 1, 2007. I am afraid that unless there is a court order the South Jordan police will order me not to demonstrate in South Jordan unless I have a permit secured in advance, as occurred on February 1, 2007. The other individual plaintiffs' affidavits contain similar averments. We conclude that these allegations are sufficient to demonstrate that the individual plaintiffs' future injurynot being able to conduct a spontaneous demonstrationis concrete and imminent, is fairly traceable to the action of the county defendants, and would be redressable by a favorable decision. [3]