For Tuesday, November 4

Monday audio. 11th Amendment papers due tomorrow. Double session next Monday. Argument assignments (attorney and judge) due next Monday. I hope 25 % of the class will not be out tomorrow.

Prep the rest of Standing, which will take us through tomorrow and the beginning of next Monday. Think about the policies or principles supporting Standing and whether they justify the doctrine.

Consider the following: 

    Missouri law prohibits food companies from labeling or advertising a product as "meat" if it is not derived from animals. Plaintiff is a vegan-food producer that does not use the word "meat" in its labels or marketing. It alleges a First Amendment violation.

Assume the claim will fail. What might be the grounds for that failure? 

Mootness/Ripeness should be ready to go next Monday. 

Not universal, still broad

Judge Kennelly on the Northern District of Illinois in a challenge to an E.O. prohibiting government contractors from using DEI programs. The plaintiff is a non-profit that conducts DEI trainings. Its stated injury is that the E.O. prevents it from working with companies that may contract with the federal government and so have canceled or will not hold DEI trainings.

The court initially granted a universal injunction prohibiting enforcement of that provision against anyone. Post-CASA, the court reissued the injunction with the same scope. The court explained that complete relief to the plaintiff requires an injunction that will leave it free to contract with anyone who might want its services. That means every company must be free of the limits of the E.O. in order to work with the plaintiff and still seek government contracts.

Read it for yourself. It has some elements of third-party standing (which we will discuss tomorrow) and it involves a First Amendment challenge, which alters standing analysis. But it shows that CASA still leaves courts room to craft broad remedies. Just don't call them universal.