In an action claiming that certain regulations of the District of Columbia Department of Transportation governing the placement of posters in the District violated the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause, dismissal of the action for lack of standing is reversed where: 1) an affidavit by plaintiff's executive director plainly qualified, at the stage of a motion to dismiss, as a credible statement of intent to commit violative acts; and 2) Younger abstention was improper to the extent that plaintiff's suit challenged the constitutionality of other postering regulations that plaintiff had not been accused of violating, so long as the invalidity of the challenged regulation did not, presumably through inseverability, imply the invalidity of any regulation that plaintiff had been accused of violating.
Argued November 10, 2009
Decided December 15, 2009
Opinion by Judge Garland
Carl Messineo and Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Washington, DC
David A. Hyden, Peter J. Nickles, Todd S. Kim and Donna M. Murasky, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC