Dave Hardy says he says standing and ripeness problems. I tend to agree with this analysis; none of the plaintiffs appear to have been penalized by the legislation. They have neither been convicted of violating it, nor deterred from exercising their fundamental rights. It's going to be hard to show harm here.
That said, the law does appear to violate state preemption laws on its face; I can't see any set of facts that would allow the challenged law to be valid. While standing may be a legal requirement even in a clear-cut case like this, making it a requirement to challenge a law will effectively allow the city to pick defendants carefully to ensure none of them have the means to challenge the law effectively. The end result of that will be a law that facially violates state law yet is nonetheless left in force.
This entry was published Mon May 04 09:20:56 CDT 2009 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2009-05-04 09:20:56.0.