Zanders v. Swanson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs lacked standing because their speech that plaintiffs claimed was chilled was not the target of the statute
• holding that plaintiffs had not suffered an objective chill when the statute did not proscribe plaintiffs’ intended speech
• stating that “chilling effect alone may constitute injury,” yet “the chilling effect . . . must be objectively reasonable”
• explaining that general factual allegations of injury may suffice to establish standing
• explaining that credible factual 4 See also Beebe v. United States, 640 F.2d 1283, 1293 (Ct. Cl. 1981) (FLSA claims are continuing claims and a separate cause of action “accrues” every payday that overtime is not paid
• stating that First Amendment injury requires objectively reasonable chilling effect

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).