From today's decision by Judge Edward Davila (N.D. Cal.) in Haltigan v. Drake:
Plaintiff John D. Haltigan brings this action against Defendants university officers to challenge the diversity, equity, and inclusion ("DEI") statements required from prospective faculty candidates by the University of California, Santa Cruz. Plaintiff contends that the University's DEI statement requirement and guidance violate First Amendment principles of academic freedom….
Plaintiff alleges that he "desires a position at the University" but that the DEI statement requirement makes his application futile, due to his views on "colorblind inclusivity," "viewpoint diversity," and "merit-based evaluation." Plaintiff further alleges that, if he were to apply for the July 2022 opening or any other openings at UC Santa Cruz, he would be "compelled to alter his behavior and either remain silent … or recant his views to conform to the dictates of the University administration." Plaintiff does not allege that he applied or prepared any application materials for the July 2022 opening….
As a general premise, there is a "long-established rule" that a plaintiff "lacks standing to challenge a rule or policy to which he has not submitted himself by actually applying for the desired benefit.'" Because the Complaint indisputably does not allege that Plaintiff "submitted himself by actually applying for the desired benefit," Plaintiff attempts to overcome this standing obstacle in three parts: (1) he invokes the "competitor standing" doctrine, which confers standing on a plaintiff that is "able and ready" to apply or compete; (2) he argues that First Amendment rights can be vindicated without engaging in or risking a challenged course of conduct; and (3) any application submitted would have been futile….
