This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org

Topic on Talk:303 Creative v. Elenis

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
This is a permanent link to a single version of this post. This version is from 1 year ago. You can see the differences from the previous version, or view other versions on the post history page.

Hi @DeRien,

I'm not sure that including the discussion of Buttigieg's criticisms of the opinion make sense, for a few reasons. First, standing wasn't discussed in the opinion except to say that the 10th Circuit held that Ms. Smith did have standing. I couldn't find any discussion of standing anywhere else in the majority or the dissent.

Second, her standing wasn't premised upon identifying any particular alleged customer, but "because she had a credible fear of prosecution given that she intended to discriminate in a way that arguably violated Colorado law and because enjoining enforcement against her in these circumstances would redress that fear."[1]

Finally, standing wasn't relevant to the rule for this case, so that discussion doesn't belong in the rule section. I think criticisms of a court opinion could belong in the comments section--but again, I probably wouldn't include Buttigieg's criticisms because they don't appear to address any relevant point of law here.

Thoughts?

  1. ā†‘ https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/2209/303-creative-llc-v-elenis-10th-circuit

<script type="text/javascript"><![CDATA[<![CDATA[window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.info={"beacon":"bam.nr-data.net","licenseKey":"ab94e9a07c","applicationID":"266244226","transactionName":"ZVQHZBYADRUEVERRDVweMEINThRJF1JDTExCWRU=","queueTime":0,"applicationTime":203,"atts":"SRMEEl4aHhs=","errorBeacon":"bam.nr-data.net","agent":""}]]]]><![CDATA[>]]></script>

Retrieved from "https://mediawiki-225844-3854743.cloudwaysapps.com/w/index.php?title=Topic:Xl5xxmtweuxy6vjn"