Reposted by Law Dork
Background on the lawsuit: www.lawdork.com/p/ousted-out...
Statement from the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Ted Boutrous: “The harm this ban did to our clients, the First Amendment, and the public as a whole is profound. The Court was right to enjoin the White House ….”
![Plaintiffs’ motion also should be denied for the additional, independent reason that they
Case 1:26-cv-08882-JLR Document 37 Filed 10/10/26 Page 5 of 20
2
lack standing.1
Plaintiffs assert standing under the “competitor advocate” theory, but they cannot
make the requisite showing that they compete “in the same arena with the party to whom the
government has bestowed the assertedly illegal benefit” so as to be “personally disadvantaged.” In
re U.S. Catholic Conference, 885 F.2d 1020, 1029 (2d Cir. 1989). Stated bluntly, the media
depictions of the President of which Plaintiffs complain do not “personally disadvantage” them
because they are not “personally compet[ing] in the same arena” with the party the media buys
purportedly benefit—President Trump. In addition, Plaintiffs acknowledge that their purported
injury is not redressable by this Court, demonstrating another reason why they lack standing.
Moreover, even if Plaintiffs could establish that Robert Hunter has standing, that would
not assist them because he resides in Alabama, the events relating to his alleged injury did not occur
in the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”), and Defendants do not reside in SDNY.
Accordingly, venue does not properly lie in SDNY for his claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1);
Caremark Therapeutic Services v. Levitt, 405 F. Supp. 2d 454, 463-64 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreif44blqmfw4m6i2pwnvb3nm433zabzdyijhguva7habtlk2n7o2uq)
![PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiffs' motion should be denied because the alleged improper final agency action of which they are complaining "run[ning] partisan political ads, funded by U.S. taxpayers," Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Section 705 Stay (Pls. Br.") (ECF No. 26) at 1-will not continue past tomorrow, the date on which briefing on their motion for a TRO will close. As such, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that a TRO is necessary to prevent imminent irreparable harm to them from Defendants' future conduct.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreihqvmiha7aq2jy6p5ea6kq4chrwvyc3wy3crzc5vg4glimjj2pmdm)
