STATE OF RIDGEWAY
RIDGEWAY CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-285
Plaintiff
v.
SHADOWCULTURE
Defendant
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
This court should dismiss this case because the litigating party lacks standing to bring the
suit.
ARGUMENT
I. THE RIDGEWAY CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION LACKS STANDING
The Superior Court of the State of Ridgeway has jurisdiction over all “cases or
controversies.” Ridgeway State Constitution, Article V, Section IV. Federal courts obtain their
jurisdiction from a similar cases or controversies clause. U.S Const, Article III, Section II. The
clause that gives our State courts jurisdiction is analogous to the clause that gives the federal
courts jurisdiction. Federal standing doctrine, which is a body of law that decides when a
Plaintiff may bring a case, arises out of the Article III cases and controversies clause. This court,
because of the striking similarities between the clause that gives our courts jurisdiction and the
clause that gives the federal courts their jurisdiction, should defer to federal jurisprudence in
deciding the confines of standing.
In order to retain standing, Plaintiff’s must have suffered and plead an “injury in fact—an
invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555
(1992)(cleaned up). But of course, suits in a pre-enforcement context as this one, cannot allege
an injury in fact because the whole premise is that no injury has yet occurred. And so, to satisfy
the “injury in fact” requirement, Plaintiffs in pre-enforcement challenges must allege “an
intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but
prescribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.” Susan B.
Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (2014)(quoting Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S.
289, 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979)). The reason such a form for the vindication of
rights exists is so that Plaintiffs are not put into a position in which they have to “first expose
himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge a statute that he claims deters
the exercise of his constitutional rights.” Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459, 94 S.Ct. 1209,
39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974). And so, where “threatened enforcement [of a law is] sufficiently
imminent,” Plaintiff’s have satisfied the injury in fact requirement. Susan B. Anthony List v.
Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (2014).
It is not enough, however, to allege that a Plaintiff has a legal interest in a
pre-enforcement challenge. Indeed, the Plaintiff must allege “an intention to engage in a course
of conduct.” Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979).
As a result, “persons having no fears of state prosecution except those that are imaginary or
speculative, are not to be accepted as appropriate plaintiffs in such cases.” Younger v. Harris, 401
US 37 (1971). The Ridgeway Civil Liberties Union has made no such claim that they intend to
participate in the conduct made illegal by this act. In fact, they can’t. An organization is not an
individual and cannot walk into a restricted area with a firearm in defiance of the law. It is
impossible for the union to be threatened with enforcement of the law, and they have made no
allegation that such enforcement is sufficiently imminent against themselves. In order to proceed
with this suit, they must have carried this burden. Of course it is true that the Ridgeway Civil
Liberties Union prides itself on protecting Constitutional and legal interests. “But a mere
"interest in a problem," no matter how long standing the interest and no matter how qualified the
organization is in evaluating the problem, is not sufficient by itself to render the organization
adversely affected or aggrieved.” Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 US 727 (1972)(cleaned up).
This Court should generally grant leave to amend civil complaints when it would be
consistent with the interests of justice. Rule 15(a) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in fact,
requires this of federal courts. And Rid. R. Civ. P. Rule 4(f) generally provides for this type of
good practice. Leave to amend, however, would not remedy this error. Plaintiff’s cannot be
allowed to dismiss themselves from the suit, substitute a viable party in, and proceed with the
complaint as though it were untouched and left to its original form. This would effectively refile
the case, except illegitimately. The Plaintiff’s should not be allowed to circumvent the
procedures of this court.
The Ridgeway Civil Liberties Union, as Plaintiffs in this case, have failed to sufficiently
plead that the enforcement of the allegedly unconstitutional law is sufficiently imminent and that
it would be enforced against the Ridgeway Civil Liberties Union. An organization's legal interest
is insufficient in carrying this burden. Plaintiff does not have standing.
Respectfully submitted,
CLIFFORD2
Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Counsel of Record
TURNTABLE5000
Assistant Solicitor General
Department of Justice
SHIGENOHARUMUNE
Assistant Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Date: April 20, 2022
