As we've been reporting since early Spring 2023, Friends of George's club has won out -- in every court it has appeared.
That is so, because the Tennessee state legislature, and Gov. Bill Lee. . . cannot parse US Constitutional principles of over a half century's standing. And here, tonight, a fellow traveller, the Pride organization in Blount County Tennessee has joined the appeal, since the Blount County DA tried to stop a Pride parade this past Summer, using the same hare-brained "law". Here's a bit -- and the full 45 page brief:
. . .[W]hen courts invalidate a speech-restricting law on facial overbreadth grounds, the Supreme Court has suggested that “all” enforcement may be lawfully suspended. See Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, 119 (2003) (“Overbreadth adjudication, by suspending all enforcement of an overinclusive law, reduces these social costs caused by the withholding of protected speech.”); cf. Sec'y of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U.S. 947, 958 (1984) (“Facial challenges to overly broad statutes are allowed not primarily for the benefit of the litigant, but for the benefit of society -- to prevent the statute from chilling the First Amendment rights of other parties not before the court.”). Further, “[c]ourts have regularly held that a plaintiff may seek an injunction applicable to all similarly-situated individuals harmed by the same unconstitutional practice, without the necessity of seeking classaction treatment.” Caspar v. Snyder, 77 F. Supp. 3d 616, 642 (E.D. Mich. 2015) (collecting cases).
Thus, “district courts are not categorically prohibited” -- as a matter of judicial authority -- “from granting injunctive relief benefitting an entire class in an individual suit” as District Attorney Mulroy asserts, even if “such broad relief is rarely justified. . . .” Sharpe v. Cureton, 319 F.3d 259, 273 (6th Cir. 2003). . . .
Now you know. The Memphis DA will lose all the way through to the Supremes, here. Out, grinning into the warm, wet night.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment