Harrell v. the Florida Bar

How courts have described this case

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

• deciding that the plaintiff had standing to bring a First Amendment challenge based on the self-censorship in commercial speech that resulted from an administrative rule
• holding that to allege standing the plaintiff must show, among other things, that his speech “would arguably be affected by the rules” and that the rules “are at least arguably vague” as they apply to him (emphasis omitted)
• noting that the three strands of justiciability are standing, ripeness, and mootness (citing Socialist Workers Party v. Leahy, 145 F.3d 1240, 1244 (11th Cir. 1998))
• holding that the government’s retreat from challenged conduct did not moot a case in part because the government failed “to disclose any basis for its decision,” making it unclear whether the decision was “well-reasoned and therefore likely to endure” (internal quotation mark omitted)
• explaining that “a clandestine or irregular” decision “to cease a challenged behavior” will not qualify as unambiguous cessation, unless it takes the form- of a statutory repeal
• explaining that the Troiano presumption only applies where the conduct has been unambiguously terminated

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).