Talk:303 Creative v. Elenis

Hi @DeRien,

I'm not sure that including the discussion of Buttigieg's criticisms of the opinion make sense, for a few reasons. First, standing wasn't discussed in the opinion except to say that the 10th Circuit held that Ms. Smith did have standing. I couldn't find any discussion of standing anywhere else in the majority or the dissent.

Second, her standing wasn't premised upon identifying any particular alleged customer, but "because she had a credible fear of prosecution given that she intended to discriminate in a way that arguably violated Colorado law and because enjoining enforcement against her in these circumstances would redress that fear."^[1]

Finally, standing wasn't relevant to the rule for this case, so that discussion doesn't belong in the rule section. I think criticisms of a court opinion could belong in the comments section--but again, I probably wouldn't include Buttigieg's criticisms because they don't appear to address any relevant point of law here.

Thoughts?

The lawyer Van Jones was asked by CNN to give analysis to CNN when I was watching a couple days ago. Here is the whole clip 'This is bad': Van Jones sounds off over key Supreme Court rulings - YouTube "And all the things I was taught in law school are now out the door.

You used to have to have standing. You couldn’t just, “well, look, I’m concerned about the law. I want the Supreme Court to tell me I’m right.” That’s what just happened. When it comes to LGBTQ, LGBTQ rights. Literally this woman had not been sued by anybody, she hadn’t, had no reason to be in court at all. Standing used to be important. That’s out the window."

I think Van Jones gives a clearer legal analysis using legal terms than Buttigieg.

I will move it to the comment section. If you don't like it. Go ahead & delete the comments. No big deal.

Thanks! I think it's important to include all major viewpoints in a neutral tone--which your edit does, in my opinion.