Gary Glenn v. Eric Holder, Jr., 690 F.3d 417

Plaintiffs Gary Glenn, Levon Yuille, René Ouellette, and James Combs are religious leaders who oppose homosexuality.
They challenge the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, which makes it a crime to cause bodily injury because of protected characteristics.
Act includes uncodified Rules of Construction that limit its reach to violent acts and permit admission of speech only when legally admissible.
Plaintiffs allege the Act will chill their religious speech and could lead to federal investigation or prosecution.
The district court dismissed for lack of standing, finding no intent to violate the Act and no credible threat of enforcement.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirms, holding plaintiffs lack standing to pursue a pre-enforcement challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Act pre-enforcement?	Plaintiffs contend the Act chills their protected speech and could lead to enforcement.	Defendants argue no intent to violate and no credible threat of enforcement.	No standing; lack of intent or credible threat.
Does any asserted chilling effect establish a credible threat of enforcement?	Plaintiffs allege enforcement pressure from activists and prosecutors creates a credible threat.	There is no objective threat or specific enforcement actions against plaintiffs.	No credible threat; chill effect does not confer standing.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete or imminent injury)
Grendell v. Ohio Supreme Court, 252 F.3d 828 (6th Cir.2001) (pre-enforcement standing requires credible threat of injury)
Johnson v. Turner, 125 F.3d 324 (6th Cir.1997) (intention to engage in proscribed conduct needed for standing)
Prime Media, Inc. v. City of Brentwood, 485 F.3d 343 (6th Cir.2007) (relaxed standing for overbreadth challenges; others' rights)
Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972) (expressions of chill require concrete injury or threat)
Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass'n, Inc., 484 U.S. 383 (1988) (legislative history not controlling for standing here)
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) (speech not categorically protected from criminal liability when incitement or threats)
James v. Meow Media, Inc., 300 F.3d 683 (6th Cir.2002) (intent to produce violent actions required for liability)
United States v. Brown, 151 F.3d 476 (6th Cir.1998) (willful intent required for aiding and abetting)
United States v. Davis, 306 F.3d 398 (6th Cir.2002) (intent required for criminal facilitation)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury in fact; not conjectural)