Could the Court’s unanimous decision in FDA v. AHM upend some federal election litigation?

court decisions, Supreme Court

In order to sue in federal court, a plaintiff must have “standing,” an actual or imminent concrete and particularized injury in fact caused by the defendant and redressable by a federal court. Many lawsuits are thrown out for lack of standing. In particular, and of particular relevance in election cases, many law students are thrown out because the plaintiffs allege a “generalized grievance,” an injury shared in common with the public and not “particularized.” In federal court, an increasing number of plaintiffs have been non-profit organizations alleging a distinct harm to them, and they have survived the standing inquiry.

But the Supreme Court’s decision today in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine might have just disrupted this litigation path in election cases.

Continue reading Could the Court’s unanimous decision in FDA v. AHM upend some federal election litigation? →
Share this:

“U.S. spy agencies are ready to warn voters about foreign election interference — if it’s severe enough”

cheap speech, chicanery, election subversion risk

An excerpt from the NBC report:

U.S. intelligence agencies are closely tracking attempts by foreign adversaries to influence the 2024 election through “deepfakes” or other false information and are ready to alert the public if necessary, officials said Wednesday.

A decision to notify the public about attempted election interference by foreign actors would be up to the leaders of the country’s intelligence agencies, including intelligence chief Avril Haines, officials from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or ODNI, told reporters.

The decision to issue a public warning would follow a review by digital forensic experts and intelligence analysts, the ODNI officials said. It would be based on an assessment of whether the disinformation was serious enough that it “could affect the election outcome,” an official said.

UPDATE: A slightly different take on the briefing here, from the AP.

Share this:

“Alabama GOP chair used homemade ID to vote. AG doesn’t seem to care.”

voter id

A very weird story about the chair of the Alabama Republican party using a very weird homemade photo ID to vote, in a way that sure seems like it doesn’t meet Ala. Code 17-9-30.  (And allowing a one-person exception might well be a violation of federal law – 52 USC 10101(a)(2)(A) – too.)

I’m all for flexibility to allow a wider variety of ways for eligible voters to show that they are who they say they are.  But that flexibility should be available to everyone, even if you’re not the state party chair. 

Share this:

It’s SCOTUS decision season

election law and constitutional law, First Amendment theory, Supreme Court

We’re waiting for several big SCOTUS cases with a tie to this blog’s content.  One of the perhaps-less-watched (?) was released this morning: Vidal v. Elster, about an attempt to trademark “Trump too small” to use on campaign gear, after a 2016 primary tiff between Donald Trump and Marco Rubio.  The Lanham Act – the federal trademark statute – prohibits registering a trademark using a living person’s name without their consent, and the Supreme Court this morning upheld the constitutionality of that limitation.

A unanimous result with a curious lineup :

THOMAS, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part III. ALITO and GORSUCH, JJ., joined that opinion in full; ROBERTS, C. J., and KAVANAUGH, J., joined all but Part III; and BARRETT, J., joined Parts I, II–A, and II–B. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, in which KAGAN, J., joined, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to Parts I, II, and III–B, and in which JACKSON, J., joined as to Parts I and II. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined.

Share this: