Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Sue over Notre Dame Law Clinic’s Filing Amicus Brief Condemning China’s Actions Towards Uyghurs

From Judge Gretchen Lund (N.D. Ind.) Monday in Chen v. Univ. of Notre Dame; the plaintiffs’ Complaint focuses on a Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Clinic amicus brief in an Argentina court that included allegedly false “website content and related activities accusing China of genocide and crimes against the human rights of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.”

Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains very few allegations involving Plaintiffs themselves; largely, the Complaint references alleged harms to “mainland China” and Chinese people generally. There are only six paragraphs in which Plaintiffs identify harm they have suffered. Each are discussed below.

Paragraph 71 alleges that “defendants deliberately fabricated or spread false information and spread lies that slander and demonise China and the Chinese people, The plaintiff is also deeply harmed by this.” This appears to be more of a “wrong suffered by the public at large,” rather than an actual harm to Plaintiff. This is especially true where Plaintiffs have not identified how they have been demonized, or how the slander has personally caused harm to them. This is not an injury sufficient to satisfy the requirements of standing under Article III.

Paragraph 92 alleges that the defendant “made false statements that were believed by some Chinese children in the USA, causing them serious emotional distress and undermining their connection to their Chinese heritage. The plaintiffs encountered this problem.”

Here again, Plaintiffs’ pleading appears to implicate the Chinese public at large, and does not identify how they specifically were impacted. Plaintiffs do not identify the concrete harm they suffered, as they are not children nor do they appear to believe the alleged false statements made by Defendant, so this is not an injury sufficient to satisfy the requirements of standing under Article III.

Paragraph 96 alleges that Plaintiffs’ reputations were directly harmed by “defendant’s claim that alleged crimes of human rights violations, crimes against humanity, genocide, and forced labor against Uyghur and other ethnic minorities…” were being committed in Xinjiang. The Court fails to see how Plaintiffs’ reputations were in-fact harmed, nor have Plaintiffs provided any additional allegations or evidence in support of this assertion. This is not an injury sufficient to satisfy the requirements of standing under Article III.

Paragraph 99 alleges that because of Defendant’s amicus brief filed in the Court of Argentina, “plaintiffs becomes[sic] a victim of these false accusations, Social reputation is damaged, feeling angry and painful, Teaching children about racial identity becomes a problem. In the interest of truth and justice, our lawsuit is primarily for ourselves and also represents all Chinese Americans and mainland Chinese compatriots.”

First, much like the other allegations in their Complaint, this appears focused on the alleged harms suffered by Chinese people generally, not Plaintiffs. Second, Plaintiffs provide no evidence or further allegations supporting their assertion that they themselves have suffered false accusations and that their social reputations have been harmed. The same is true of paragraph 107, alleging that Plaintiffs’ reputations have been damaged. For these reasons, these also are not injuries sufficient to satisfy the requirements of standing under Article III.

Brian E Casey (Barnes & Thornburg LLP) represents the University.