Where a plaintiff law firm has brought suit over comments made by Michigan’s attorney general and its former civil rights director, the dismissal of the complaint should be affirmed because of a failure to demonstrate how the defendants caused, or will cause, the law firm to suffer a cognizable injury.
“Among a public official’s many responsibilities is the need to communicate with her constituents. In a representative democracy, the public expects its officials to highlight perceived problems and offer preferred solutions. That dialogue, of course, sometimes leads officials to express views that cast others in an unfriendly light. For better or worse, that is a natural product of our democratic system, where representatives are chosen from competing candidates with competing ideals. It is hard to envision American political life working any other way. …
“The American Freedom Law Center believes that Michigan’s attorney general and its former civil rights director took that prerogative too far. As American Freedom sees things, by citing a third party’s reporting on hate groups in an official state press release—where that third party counts American Freedom among those groups—the two Wolverine State officials tarnished the law firm’s reputation, an injury it says continues to hamper its First Amendment-protected activities. American Freedom has pursued that grievance through a lawsuit against the two officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. After six years of litigation, the district court dismissed the action on the ground that American Freedom failed to produce evidence at summary judgment establishing its Article III standing to sue. Because American Freedom has not demonstrated how defendants caused, or will cause, the law firm to suffer a cognizable injury, we affirm. …
“Even if we assume that American Freedom suffered reputational harm by virtue of its designation as a hate group by the [Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)], it has not shown how defendants’ press release caused incremental reputational injury. …
“Even had American Freedom demonstrated that defendants caused it reputational harm when the press release first came out, that alone would not get the law firm across the standing finish line. American Freedom, recall, cannot skate by on past harm alone. … So in addition to showing that the press release harmed American Freedom’s reputation in 2019, the law firm also must show that this injury will exist in the future. … American Freedom runs into trouble on that front too. …
“To sum up: American Freedom has not shown that the 2019 press release poses a risk of future reputational harm to the law firm. Even accepting that the SPLC’s hate group designation has harmed American Freedom’s public stature over the years, it still does not establish how defendants’ press release caused or added to that injury. And even if it did in the days following its publication, we struggle to see how it could continue to cause harm seven years later. For these reasons, American Freedom’s reputational theory of standing fails on causation. …
“We affirm.”
Concurring judge’s comments
READLER, Circuit Judge, concurring. “The panel opinion arrives at the right conclusion for the right reasons. An underlying issue that was the subject of extensive engagement by the parties throughout this appeal, however, garnered less attention than it perhaps deserved. That is American Freedom’s alleged reputational injury.”