Previous Post in this series:
- Ali vs Hogan Part 1: Saqib Ali Files Lawsuit Against Maryland Governor Hogan for Violating his Civil Rights
Next Posts in this series:
- Ali vs Hogan Part 3: Saqib Ali Responds to Governor Hogan's Motion to Dismiss
- Ali vs Hogan Part 4: Governor Hogan and Attorney General Frosh file Another Set of Responses on the Motion To Dismiss
- Ali vs Hogan Part 5: Saqib Ali Tells Court About Judge's Favorable Ruling in a Similar Case in Texas
- Ali vs Hogan Part 6: Oral Arguments on Hogan's Motion to Dismiss
On Monday January 9th 2019, I filed a lawsuit against Maryland's Governor Larry Hogan for violating my civil rights by preventing me from getting a state contract because of my boycott of Israel and Israel's illegal settlements in the West Bank.
Today, Governor Hogan responded with a Motion to Dismiss my case. You can read his motion by clicking below.
The main arguments that Hogan makes in this motion are as follows:
- I lack standing to sue because the executive order applies to business entities, not individuals like me.
- I lack standing to sue because I have not submitted or been denied a bid or proposal.
- I lack standing because I have not voluntarily self-censored my pro-BDS advocacy.
- Neither Governor Hogan nor Attorney General Frosh are the proper parties to sue in this case because they don't have a "special relationship" to the enforcement of the executive order.
- Restricting boycotts does not violate the First Amendment. And NAACP vs. Claiborne does not control in this case.