Thread by @AkivaMCohen

OMG, what? They filed a *civil rights* claim against MLB moving the All Star game?

People, this is not a thing. It's not even in the same zip code of a thing

https://twitter.com/CraigMJoseph/status/1399899969486721028

Let's count the ways this is not a thing. Long-time readers will probably be able to sing along

Here's who the plaintiff is, in this lawsuit over <checks notes> harm to Atlanta businesses.

A Texas based non-profit whose mission is to highlight the economic impact of bad policy.

Makes sense. Yes, you definitely have standing here. 100%

No, this isn't going to get you associational standing. You don't get to assert the claims of 3K random businesses in Atlanta because they are "members" of your "network".

Oh dear God

"We were injured by being forced to spend money opposing your policy choice" are you on fucking crack? You were *required* to place a billboard in Times Square? On pain of what?

The only thing that can appropriately capture my reaction here is Samuel L Jackson

brb

Please please please tell me that you're going to use this to argue MLB is a state actor. (Civil rights law claims only apply to action by the state or people acting "under color of law"). That's what this is, right?

Skipping the parts on who the defendants are and jurisdiction.

Now for some basic background: What is the All Star Game, and what is the really great law that protects elections and puppies and everything good in life that MLB hates for inexplicable reasons?

1) "Punish Atlanta-based residents and businesses" - LAWL

2) Guys. You already said you're based in Texas. You CANNOT allege that you're based in Atlanta

There's a couple of paragraphs about GA elected officials saying "come on, don't do this" and MLB doing this

Not only did this cost the Atlanta area a shit-ton of money, it also cost them Will Smith, apparently.

Because, of course, the goddamned Fresh Prince wouldn't have cancelled his filming in GA if not for the MLB pulling the All-Star Game, as evidenced by ... things. And reasons. Yes. Also reasons.

They did, they did!

No, that doesn't work. That Ludtke case? It says when a tenant on public property engages in illegal discrimination that the governmental landlord has a right to enjoin but silently allows, that's sufficient state action to trigger a civil rights claim

Someone want to tell me which governmental entity with authority to force MLB to keep the game in GA didn't act? Anyone? Anyone?

And that, of course, is before we get to the absolute sheer fucking galaxy-brained beauty of the idea that you have a constitutional right to <checks notes> not have the All-Star Game moved after it was announced

Oh oh oh. Look at the giant brass balls on Howard. Look out, we've got a bad-ass over here

I'm legitimately interested in where he thinks he's going with this. To recap, Howard Kleinhandler is now alleging that by moving the All-Star Game, MLB both "deprived" Georgians of their rights and prevented Georgia's government from protecting its citizens, and I'm dying

Which rights, Howard?

They appear to be arguing there's a free-floating Constitutional right not to have other people's business decisions negatively impact you, which is . . . um . . . novel.

Which ones, Howie?

And again ... your boys aren't Atlanta residents. Come on.

Oh, I get it: political advocacy that you think would harm "Election Integrity" is a "deprivation of rights"

Now's the time that I note that: 1) Howie was one of the Kraken attorneys; 2) not the one with any legal acumen, apparently; 3) but definitely one of the smarter ones all the same. He even spelled "District" correctly!

I'm sorry, what?

The Dormant fucking Commerce Clause? Are you shitting me? Your argument now is that "only Congress has the legal right to move the All-Star Game"?

Folks, the "Dormant Commerce Clause" is the doctrine that says "only the Federal Government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce" so state regulation can't discriminate against out-of-state commerce. It fits here like Donald Trump at a DSA meeting

1) That's not a claim, doofus

2) Yes, I'm absolutely certain that at the top of MLB's mind when it decided to move the game was the impact on that well known entity, Job Creators' Network.

No, seriously: "Private business decided to punish a state for policy it doesn't like" isn't in the same zip code of a claim. Why are you like this?

No. Just no.

To make out a tortious interference claim in GA, you need to show not only that the interferer knew the contract existed, and not only that they acted wrongfully (best of luck) but also that their *purpose* was to interfere with your contract jobcreatorsnetwork.com/app/uploads/20…

You're alleging that MLB's goal in moving the game was interfering with your contracts, whatever they were?

That's not how third-party beneficiaries work, y'all. I don't get to claim rights under my local grocery store's contracts with its vendors because having food available benefits me, too.

A third party beneficiary is someone who: (1) doesn't sign the contract; but (2) is INTENDED BY THE PARTIES to be a person who benefits from it.

For example, if I rent a hall for my son's wedding (many years from now): He didn't sign the contract (he will, I ain't paying) but

both I and the caterer know that the purpose is to provide a spot for HIS wedding; if the caterer breaches the contract, not only do I have a claim, but he, as the intended beneficiary, also does.

Kleinhendler's theory is that everybody in NYC can sue a road construction company that fails to perform on time.

That's not how it fucking works.

Oh man, they pled tortious interference with general business relationships, too

Next they're on to "Promissory Estoppel" which is the no-backsies rule of American law. If you promise me something, you know I'm going to rely on that promise and change my position, and I do and give up something valuable, you can't just change your mind

Slight problem: they haven't alleged that anyone gave up anything at all.

They alleged that people expected they'd get a benefit from the All-Star Game. But "I was expecting to make money and now I won't" isn't a "change of position"

Also, "announcing where you plan to hold the All-Star Game" isn't a "promise" since the league can move the game at will. It's just an announcement of your intent.

MLB wasn't like "hey, Atlanta, we promise to hold the 2021 ASG here".

Civil conspiracy, OMG

Folks, "agreeing to do something legal that causes other people economic harm" isn't civil conspiracy. It's making weekend plans.

Stop it.

I'm just sad that I can't use the famous Texas jurist's "liking cat pictures" analogy here

And, to wrap it up, a claim for injunctive relief.

Because OF COURSE a court can order MLB to hold its ASG somewhere it doesn't want to. That's very definitely a thing that will happen.

Howie Kleinhendler: Making things somehow even stupider, every day.

It's a hell of a slogan, HK, but good on you for truth in advertising.