Page 45 - 2022augustBOG
P. 45

Case 2:19-cv-11962-LMA-JVM   Document 106   Filed 08/08/22   Page 17 of 33





                       Relatedly, insofar as plaintiff asserts that defendants are likely to engage in


               non-germane activities in the future, such claims are too speculative and remote to

               support standing.  Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568  U.S. 398, 409,  409  (2013)


               (“[T]hreatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact, and


               . . . allegations of possible future injury are not sufficient[.]” (emphasis in original)

               (quotation omitted)). Additionally,  the hypothetical nature of  plaintiff’s concerns


               renders the claim unripe. See, e.g., Orix Credit All., Inc. v. Wolfe, 212 F.3d 891, 895

               (5th Cir. 2000) (“A case is generally ripe if any remaining questions are purely legal


               ones; conversely, a case is not ripe if further factual development is required.”).


               B.  First Amendment Claims


                       The Fifth Circuit recently elaborated on the First Amendment’s applicability

               to mandatory bar associations in Boudreaux and McDonald. In McDonald, the court


               surveyed  the two Supreme Court  cases considering First Amendment challenges

               pertaining to mandatory bar associations—Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820 (1961),


               and Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990)—and noted that these cases


               left several substantial First Amendment issues in this context unresolved. See id. at

               243–44.
                        64



               claims  are therefore retrospective, and [Ex Parte]  Young  will not save them.”
               (emphasis in original)).  Additionally, because the Court concludes that plaintiff’s
               claims are moot insofar as they pertain to previous conduct and policies that have
               since been ceased and repealed, respectively, the Court declines to reach defendants’
               argument that such  claims  are time-barred pursuant to the  one-year statute of
               limitations for § 1983 claims.
               64  The court summarized Lathrop and Keller as follows: “Lathrop held that lawyers
               may constitutionally be mandated to join a bar association that solely regulates the
               legal profession and improves the quality of  legal services. Keller identified


                                                             17
   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50