Citizen Center v. Gessler

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a claim for a prospective injunction wasn’t moot because the requested relief could affect future elections
• recognizing the authority to dismiss a case as prudentially moot in the ballot tracing context, but choosing not to as the injury could still be remedied
• addressing mootness before standing, explaining that “[b]ecause there is no mandatory sequencing of nonmerits issues, we have leeway to choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits” (brackets arid internal quotation marks omitted)
• addressing mootness before standing, explaining that “[b]ecause there is no mandatory sequencing of nonmerits issues, we have leeway to choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)
• evaluating allegations in complaint when assessing whether plaintiff satisfied Walker test
• “Allegations of a subjective ‘chill’ are not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).