Reviewing the plaintiffs’ challenge to a portion of the state bar code, the Court concluded that the Virginia Supreme Court was legislatively immune from suit for “for refusing to amend the Code in the wake of our cases indicating that the Code in some respects would be held invalid. [...] As in Consumers Union, Plaintiffs are not asking this Court to direct the Colorado General Assembly, or its two Judiciary Committees, to formally repeal speech restrictions on “misgendering,” “deadnaming,” or “disrespectful” speech.3 Instead, Plaintiffs request an injunction that is comparable to what the plaintiffs obtained in Consumers Union—one barring enforcement of the illegal speech restrict. [...] To be sure, Defendants’ restrictions are also content based, because they require the enforcer to examine the content of the speech to determine if the rule was violated. [...] Defendants bear the burden of proving mootness While Plaintiffs must show standing at the time of filing, the burden shifts to Defendants to show post-filing mootness, and that burden is a heavy one. [...] Significantly, Defendants continue to claim their actions were legal and have taken no steps to rescind or disavow their speech restrictions, or restore the erased public audio of Goeke’s testimony.8 On the contrary, Defendants admit that “possible future application of similar civility and decorum standards has certainly not been disclaimed by the legislative Defendants in this case[.]” Dkt.
- Pages
- 15
- Published in
- United States of America
