Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing on lack of standing grounds plaintiff’s action seeking to enjoin defendants from enforcing Rule 12(3) of Indiana Rules for Admission to Bar and Discipline of Attorneys, which precludes for admission prospective attorneys who advocate overthrow of either State of Indiana or U.S. govt. Although plaintiff argued that Rule 12(3) violated his freedom of speech where he intended to engage in “revolutionary advocacy” while distributing, among other publications, Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto, record showed that plaintiff had not yet applied for admission to Indiana bar. As such, plaintiff lacked standing since he could not show present harm where there has been no finding that his proposed activities would violate said Rule.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Standing