A thing I’m worried about right now is the need under some statutes for potential plaintiffs to demonstrate *actual harm* from certain US gov actions vs *potential harm.* As a “reasonable” citizen, this seems to put undue burden on people who are just waiting for the other shoe to drop. - ThreadSky

couts.bsky.social • 9 days ago

A thing I’m worried about right now is the need under some statutes for potential plaintiffs to demonstrate *actual harm* from certain US gov actions vs *potential harm.* As a “reasonable” citizen, this seems to put undue burden on people who are just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Comments

marquemaire.bsky.social•9 days ago

There are now plenty of people In the harmed category, sadly.

inga307.bsky.social•9 days ago

Good point, injunctions are not very effective after the fact.

frozzbot.bsky.social•9 days ago

I don't understand this. Is it the type/text of some laws that require plaintiffs to demonstrate harm?

couts.bsky.social•9 days ago

Yes. For example, a judge denied University of California students’ request for a restraining order against DOGE access to Dept. of Education data on the grounds that they did not endure “irreparable injury” https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277216/gov.uscourts.dcd.277216.20.0_2.pdf

roddusi.bsky.social•9 days ago

They do not have to show that they have already “endured” irreparable harm, but that such harm is imminent if the injunction is not granted. It’s a highly factual and strict showing, and there are reams of of paper on nearly every word of the legal standard that must be met.

frozzbot.bsky.social•9 days ago

But is demonstrating harm required of all plaintiffs in all cases or just those involving certain types of laws? I assume a hospital patient wouldn't have to demonstrate the harm of a HIPPA violation for a court to hear the case. IDK.

voteblue4vr.bsky.social•9 days ago

It's the logic of our nation: police don't prevent crime, courts do not prevent the harm, these are only there to offer "redress" after the harm has already been done.
Courts use a phrase that the claim is not "ripe" for justice.

isukikane.bsky.social•9 days ago

Would actual harm include mental health breakdowns from the fear that makes you lose your job?

couts.bsky.social•9 days ago

Note #2: I am a journalist, not a lawyer, so I welcome any lawyers who can tell me why I’m being a big dummy.

jdubs30.bsky.social•9 days ago

What I don’t understand about Chutkan’s ruling is that personal data protection is a cornerstone not only of good IT practice but also of laws, like HIPAA, that offer protections against disclosure. So much so that access tiers are established so not every IT staffer gets access to everything.

katillogical.bsky.social•9 days ago

I think she was referring to what standing the state AGs had to sue, and they couldn't present it. But it's about to hit...tourist loss after closing state parks, infrastructure decay, unemployment is about to get slammed by the volume of government employees on the street...and more

roberts-rants.bsky.social•9 days ago

I don’t know if you’re being a dummy. The Constitution is interpreted to require actual *or imminent* harm to a plaintiff in federal court.

The question is whether any statutes narrow that to only actual harm. Do you know of any? I don’t, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

couts.bsky.social•9 days ago

Note: I put “reasonable” in scare quotes because so much US law relies on the reasonable standard and I truly don’t know what reasonable means anymore.

halophoenix.bsky.social•9 days ago

as soon as I read the ruling I thought the exact same thing - how much harm has to come from these actions before the law interprets the action as harmful?

furious-t.bsky.social•9 days ago

You have to be able to articulate the specific "harm." This ruling isn't really about potential vs actual. It's about the specific bad things that did/will happen, and what actual consequences did/will occur.

lorenzofb.bsky.social•9 days ago

Don’t be unreasonable

couts.bsky.social•9 days ago

Simple as that!

roberts-rants.bsky.social•9 days ago

Which statutes do you have in mind?

callipygia1.bsky.social•9 days ago

If someone threatens you with murder, they haven’t done actual harm yet, but they certainly plan to. It’s the same if they threaten to overthrow the government.

dramber.bsky.social•9 days ago

The courts are requesting more than that.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply