News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Supreme Court guts agency power in seismic Chevron ruling. Parent comment

Re:Supreme Court guts agency power in seismic Chevron ruling by avar on Friday June 28, 2024 @06:14PM (#40825857)
That website creator sued their state's regulatory agency, and "sufficiently demonstrated both an intent to provide graphic and web design services to the public in a manner that exposes them to [Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act] liability, and a credible threat that Colorado will prosecute them under that statute."[1]

Yes, the alleged "situation" may have been contrived, but that doesn't change whether they have standing to sue their state to challenge what they see as an unconstitutional law.

Do you think their only recourse should be to break the law, and risk the penalties associated with that if it does turn out to be constitutional?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court guts agency power in seismic Chevron ruling by anigbrowl on Friday June 28, 2024 @07:13PM (#40826336)
The strange thing there is that for a few decades now federal courts have required a plaintiff to have suffered some sort of injury before they can sue, and the notion that a credible threat is equivalent to such injury seems to overstretch that concept.

https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-136/standing-in-the-w...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court guts agency power in seismic Chevron ruling by avar on Friday June 28, 2024 @08:23PM (#40826816)
The ADF compiled a short history of pre-enforcement challenges going back to the 1920s[1]. They're not common, but weren't novel in this case.

1. https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/PreEn...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Supreme Court guts agency power in seismic Chevron ruling by Darrengineer on Friday June 28, 2024 @09:28PM (#40827169)
Also, the ‘credible threat’ of being prosecuted was based on the agency simply declining to state that it would not sue if Smith violated the law. Seeing as no such violation of the law had even been alleged, it seems incredibly flimsy to say there was a threat at all, let alone a credible threat.
[ Parent | on HN ]