Ashley Galvan v. Jason Wendel and Amber Quarles

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[P]assing legislation designed to repair what may have been a constitutionally defective statute . . . . represents responsible lawmaking, not manipulation of the judicial process.”
• summarizing the legislative history of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2252, and 2256
• finding no credible threat of prosecution in light of “the Justice Department’s disclaimer [of enforcing the statute against plaintiffs’ conduct] and plaintiffs’ unwavering claim that the statutes in no [way] apply to their activities”
• “Here, as [the] plaintiffs admit, the forfeiture provisions are not ‘aimed’ at them. They are aimed instead at those who [knowingly] produce and distribute child pornography and obscene material.”
• “[W]hether plaintiffs have standing . . . depends on how likely it is that the government will attempt to use these provisions against them . . . and not on how much the prospect of enforcement worries them.”
• “[W]hether plaintiffs have standing . . . depends on how likely it is that the government will attempt to use these provisions against them . . . and not on how much the prospect of enforcement worries them.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).