42 USC § 1983; First Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment equal protection; Article III standing; Injury in fact; Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife; Causation; Reputational harm; Turaani v Wray; Future injury; Murthy v Missouri; Economic harm; Third-party donor actions; Diversion of resources; Forfeiture; Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court held that plaintiff failed to establish Article III standing because it did not produce evidence that defendants caused, or would cause, a cognizable injury. Plaintiff sued Michigan’s Attorney General and the state’s former civil rights director under § 1983 after a state press release cited the SPLC’s Hate Map, which listed plaintiff as a hate group. The district court initially found standing adequately pled, but after discovery granted summary judgment to defendants on standing grounds. On appeal, the court first rejected plaintiff’s reputational-harm theory, explaining that plaintiff had “to show ‘reputational harms flowing’ from defendants’ press release, not the SPLC designation” generally. The press release did not name plaintiff, news articles did not connect any harm to the release, and the Detroit News inquiry showed at most that a reporter read the release and checked the Hate Map. The court also held that plaintiff failed to show imminent future reputational injury because the release had been removed from the state website, defendants had undercut any alleged state “imprimatur” by distancing themselves from SPLC reliance, and any future FOIA access was speculative. It next held that plaintiff failed to establish economic injury because donor concerns did not show lost donations, the AmazonSmile denial predated the release, de-banking fears were not “certainly impending,” and proposed donor data failed to show present or future harm. Finally, the court held that plaintiff forfeited its diversion-of-resources theory and, in any event, offered no “concrete details” showing future resource diversion. Affirmed.