Opinion ID: 795700
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Field Day's Standing

Text: 21 The Suffolk County Employees argue that, although Field Day may assert its facial challenge, it lacks standing to assert any as-applied claim under the Mass Gathering Law. The basis for the standing argument made by the Suffolk County Employees is their belief that Field Day is bringing and can only bring third party claims; i.e. that the only rights involved in this case belong[ ] to some other individuals, i.e., performers and patrons of the proposed concert. The District Court stated that this contention had no merit. We agree. Field Day, as a concert organizer and promoter, has obvious first party First Amendment claims. 22 This Court's review of whether a plaintiff has constitutional standing is de novo. Shain v. Ellison, 356 F.3d 211, 214 (2d Cir.2004). Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts have jurisdiction only over cases and controversies. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Three elements make up the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130. In order to have constitutional standing, first, the plaintiffs must have suffered an injury in fact — an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Id. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of — the injury has to be fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not... the result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court. Id. at 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (internal quotation marks omitted). Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Id. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements. Id. As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that he has suffered a concrete injury or is on the verge of suffering one. See id. 23 It is well-settled that event organizers have First Amendment rights and have standing to protect those rights. 24 [A] private speaker does not forfeit constitutional protection simply by combining multifarious voices, or by failing to edit their themes to isolate an exact message as the exclusive subject matter of the speech. Nor, under our precedent, does First Amendment protection require a speaker to generate, as an original matter, each item featured in the communication. 25 Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 569-70, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995). Moreover, because a concert organizer has standing to facially challenge time-place-manner restrictions on speech in its efforts to produce a concert, as Suffolk County concedes, the same First Amendment rights are more than sufficient in this case to support a § 1983 claim where those rights allegedly have been violated. See Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. at 787-88, 109 S.Ct. 2746 (Respondent concert organizer, prior to event, obtained preliminary injunction against some aspects of municipal sound amplification guidelines. After the concert, respondent amended its complaint to seek damages and a declaratory judgment striking down the guidelines as facially invalid.). Field Day's First Amendment free speech rights to organize an expressive activity, to wit, a music concert, 2 were alleged to have been violated by Suffolk County. Accordingly, Field Day has standing to pursue its as-applied claims. 26