Digital Recognition Network, Inc. v. Hutchinson, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17768

Background

Plaintiffs Digital Recognition Network, Inc., and Vigilant Solutions develop and sell automatic license-plate reader (ALPR) technology and collect, sell, and share plate data (including timestamps and GPS) to repossession firms, finance/insurance clients, and law enforcement.
Arkansas enacted the Automatic License Plate Reader System Act (Aug. 2013), which makes using an ALPR system unlawful and authorizes private civil actions for damages by “any person claiming” injury from violations.
After the Act, Digital Recognition’s Arkansas affiliates stopped using/selling camera kits and the companies ceased collecting and disseminating ALPR data in Arkansas; they sued Arkansas’s governor and attorney general under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought declaratory and injunctive relief asserting First Amendment rights.
The district court dismissed the suit: it found lack of standing for injunctive relief but assumed declaratory standing, then held Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity barred the claims because the officials lacked a sufficient enforcement connection under Ex Parte Young.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed on Article III standing grounds, holding the injury was not fairly traceable to the governor or attorney general and would not be redressed by relief against them because enforcement is through private suits, not by those officials.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs have Article III standing to pursue injunctive relief against governor and AG	Plaintiffs would resume ALPR activities; the Act’s private-enforcement threat causes injury and defendants’ roles (broad powers/advice/intervention) make them proper targets	Defendants lack enforcement authority over the Act; injury is traceable to private litigants, not the officials	No standing: injury not fairly traceable to governor or AG and injunction against them would not redress injury
Whether declaratory relief satisfies redressability when enforcement is by private parties	A declaratory judgment would reduce private suits, deter enforcement, and create persuasive/binding precedent for Arkansas courts	A declaration against the officials would not bind private litigants or compel them to refrain from suing; state courts are not bound by inferior federal courts on federal constitutional questions	Declaratory relief against these officials would not redress plaintiffs’ injury; redressability fails
Whether Ex Parte Young permits suit against governor and AG despite private enforcement scheme	Plaintiffs invoke Ex Parte Young and Eighth Circuit precedent (Bruning) to argue officials have sufficient connection to enforcement by virtue of broad powers, advisory role, or contingent authority to intervene	Defendants point out Ex Parte Young requires an official to have “some connection” to enforcement; here the statute authorizes only private suits and AG/governor lack independent enforcement power	Ex Parte Young does not apply—the officials lack the requisite connection to enforcement of the ALPR statute
Whether the AG’s advisory/intervention or common-law powers make her a proper defendant	Plaintiffs argue AG may intervene to defend the Act, advise officials, or bring common-law/public-interest suits, so she is connected to enforcement	Defendants note intervention is limited to defense in private suits; common-law or other statutory enforcement powers are either inapplicable or independent of the Act and do not create enforcement authority over this statute	Advisory role or potential intervention is insufficient; contingent or independent common-law powers do not make AG a proper Ex Parte Young defendant

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability)
Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (state officials subject to suit only if they have some connection to enforcement)
Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (causation/traceability requirement for standing)
Bruning v. ACLU, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir.) (contextual discussion of officials’ enforcement connection under Ex Parte Young)
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (creation and dissemination of information can be speech under the First Amendment)
Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (circumstances where judicial relief produces a practical, mechanical change that redresses injury)